TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

sadly, a woman got murdered a few day ago, the public response: "only women have it hard. men dont.". stop pushing your man-hating agendas, especially when it comes to someone's death.

C834

July 7, 2022
141 upvotes
/r/AntiFeminists
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jul/02/zara-aleena-walk-women-safe-streets-violence
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title sadly, a woman got murdered a few day ago, the public response: "only women have it hard. men dont.". stop pushing your man-hating agendas, especially when it comes to someone's death.
Author

C834

Upvotes 141
Comments 30
Date July 7, 2022 9:46 PM UTC
(4 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/AntiFeminists
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/antifeminists/comments/vttz7l/sadly_a_woman_got_murdered_a_few_day_ago_the/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/AntiFeminists/sadly-a-woman-got-murdered-a-few-day-ago-the.1122661
https://theredarchive.com/post/1122661
Red Pill terms in post
feminism
Top posts by C834

Men in the UK tend to be less confident of police than women, yet the media only focuses on how women can't trust police

328 upvotes
May 9, 2022
/r/MensRights

aww what a brave victim on coming out! how dare those hateful men approach her without her permission? it must be so horrible and oppressive!

257 upvotes
December 25, 2022
/r/AntiFeminists

Opening doors for women is now "wrongthink"

254 upvotes
November 20, 2022
/r/AntiFeminists

Anti-street harassment ads were out up in my city that make it look like only women are victims of it

182 upvotes
May 1, 2022
/r/MensRights

permabanned for saying anti-feminism is not misogyny

161 upvotes
June 1, 2022
/r/AntiFeminists

Found this post in a particular toxic feminist sub

79 upvotes
August 27, 2022
/r/AntiFeminists

Any opinions on the Sarah Everard incident last year in the UK?

75 upvotes
January 30, 2022
/r/MensRights

"men should only be allowed around toxic feminists who talk about the 97% and think they are still oppressed and call men privileged"

74 upvotes
May 27, 2022
/r/AntiFeminists

Comments

[–]dw87190 49 points50 points51 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Men are attacked and killed on the streets every single day. But yeah, go off about the lesser common occurence of it happening to a woman...

[–]C834[S] 9 points10 points11 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

yes.

[–]ItsJustMeMaggie 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is this article implying that murdering women is a defining “male behavior”?

[–]onlyidiotsgoonreddit 16 points17 points18 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Young migrants keep committing violent crimes. How can we turn this around and use it against the victims?"

[–]C834[S] 19 points20 points21 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it's never enough for feminists. murders occur everyday. they made the uk living hell for men and even young boys growing in that living hell, yet they are told women have it harder. even when men experience racism, white women will hate them just for having a y chromosome. it's very sad.

[–]idontevenlift37 14 points15 points16 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Something bad happens to a woman = entire country comes to a screeching halt

Something bad happens to a man = just another day at the office

[–]Al_Modir 10 points11 points12 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yea I’m sure all the criminals who make people feel unsafe on the streets will be moved by this street protest and change their ways.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Bruh

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The prime minister lit a candle? Did they do it for every person murdered? Also men and other genders?

It should be street safety or public safety. Not just woman safety. And yes it's sad that someone got murdered, but when a man does it doesn't get that much media attention (FOR SOME REASON)

[–]ruyrybeyro 12 points13 points14 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You you are talking about one death. Picture Ukraine where men are being killed everyday

[–]TheRabid 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why is this specific person who died important? Or was it meant to be an example or a concern?

[–]NoCommunication5976 7 points8 points9 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Women ☕️

[–]some_cultured_swine 6 points7 points8 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Women ☕️

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Women ☕️

[–]Smdeveryday 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men 🤏

[–]marlonbtx 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

they should go and conquer their own fucking country and build their feminist empire. They are really comfortable just giving shit but they are free to decouple from us, we don't need them we have enough good women.

[–]Max_Schmidt350 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Death is death, it's painful and difficult to accept especially if it was a murder, may the murderer be caught and faces justice and my condolences to the family of the victim.

As for the man-hating, feminists are crazy if they think men have it better, and using this poor woman's death and exploiting the public sadness shows nothing but their utter hate and contempt to men, which is vile and wretched just like their ideology

[–]Best_Illustrator_137 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I feel for her, but what the person writing the article fails to understand by saying that criminals and crime shouldn’t happen, and while I wholeheartedly agree, it just isn’t possible, if men walk down a horrible dangerous ally way they will also probably be robbed or assaulted. The reality is that because men are physically stronger it most likely will be a kind SA, but simply saying women should be able to walk anywhere and nothing happens is wishful thinking. That’s like me going into the hood wearing colors and expecting not to get my shit beat because I should just be able to walk anywhere, that isn’t to say that it’s more fearful for women because sometimes it can happen in places thought to be safe. It doesn’t mean you should just walk anywhere and be safe cause most places aren’t unfortunately.

[+]pro-frog -10 points-9 points-8 points 4 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Disclaimer, I'm a feminist who lurks on this sub. I encourage you to really reread that article carefully. Did they say they hate men, or did they say they hate male violence? The two are not synonymous, and the author never claimed that they were.

Violence against women is disproportionally committed by men. Violence against MEN is disproportionately committed by men. Isn't it worth acknowledging and investigating that disparity? Isn't it worth giving it a name?

And if you reread that article, you'll also see they never claim men have no issues. This author is speaking from their personal experience as a woman, talking about gendered violence. It's not anyone's job to speak on every issue, or even every aspect of every issue. No one should make light of the real issues faced by men, especially the higher likelihood they face to be victims of violent crime. But that's not at all what this article did. I think you would be hard-pressed to find lines in this article that could be paraphrased to, "Only women have it hard. Men don't." And I think you'd find it impossible to find anything that implied they hate men.

You can disagree with this person's goals, their message, or their intent. But I think it's a mistake to twist their words the way you have. I see it pretty frequently here and it makes me take any criticism of feminism less seriously, even though I know logically that every movement has aspects of it worth criticizing.

[–]DefiantDepth8932 8 points9 points10 points 4 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

How would you feel if someone said that they're tired of white people being killed by black men. If they write an entire article about how much it sucks that white people have to live in fear because of black people. And how white people should all unite against black violence until it stops.... don't you think that comes off as racist?

The problem isn't that they care about women. It's that they care only about women. When a woman gets mufdered, it's like a whole thing about ohh she didn't get to walk home, she's like so many other women with whom we need to be in solidarity, men need to start supporting women who live in fear because of crime.. meanwhile when a man gets murdered(happens 4-5 times more), then it's just a statistic, it's just neutral reporting, no sympathy for the entire gender, no calls for everyone to show empathy towards MALE victims. This is the kinda bullshit we're tired of.

Have you heard of the 'missing white woman' syndrome? This is literally that but apparently black people are allowed to get mad that victims of their race never get any attention meanwhile men aren't allowed to get mad when people of our gender don't.

When they underreport male victims so much and don't show nearly as much empathy towards men for being majority victims of such shit, but are very fucking happy to acknowledge that men are majority of the perps, it's very hard to argue that they don't hate men. It'd be like creating alarmism about the disproportionate black crime without acknowledging how much suffering black people themselves have to face because of it and portraying them as a one dimensional group of people.

[–]TheRabid 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

This should be interesting if the conversation plays out.

[+]pro-frog -6 points-5 points-4 points 4 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well, your first point isn't a great example because it's not true. White murder victims are overwhelmingly killed by white perpetrators, just as black victims tend to be killed by black perpetrators - violence is generally intra-racial. People are sensitive to an example like that because it's an excuse used pretty frequently, historically, to justify unfounded hatred & fear of black people. So I can see what you're trying to say but I think it's not a fair comparison. As far as I know, no matter what example you give, the demographic a straight, cis, white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant man should statistically fear violence from the most is his own.

Honestly I do agree that male victimization is underreported. It's complicated because I feel as if the only time I ever see information on male victimization, it's used to try and shut down discussions of female victimization (like this). But it's hard to tell if that's because people primarily use the data for this purpose, or if it just never gets traction or attention when people try to let the data stand on its own.

I also think a feminist perspective on male victimization (ie that it's due in part to patriarchal ideas of manhood, that men are socialized not to express emotions in healthy ways, that we perceive men as naturally stronger and therefore less in need of social welfare/assistance, etc, so the solution is to deconstruct the male privilege of being perceived as stronger and less vulnerable & prioritize MH resources for men) is a more popular explanation for male victimization than the antifeminist perspective (that women receive social assistance, etc at greater rates because they have privilege, so the solution is to deconstruct that privilege). Which means that feminists talking about male victimization would gain more traction than antifeminists talking about it, but the feminist perspective in this case is not as direct and intuitive as it is when we see a man commit violence against a woman. So feminists are less likely to talk about it, and when they do, other feminists are less likely to repeat it. It's a shame and I really think the best solution there is more male feminists - they can understand their own challenges and barriers better than women can.

I do wish this article, and others like it, would be more specific in methods they aim for to reduce male violence, because I would think just about any of them would also reduce male victimization.

[–]DefiantDepth8932 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Yes people are sensitive to that example because it's been used to create fear of black men. But it's also been used to create fear of men in general. Like fear is mostly generated against black MEN. So there's certainly a gender aspect of it that progressives never acknowledge.

You mentioned how we always shut down discussions on female victimization... why is being victim of murder even a gendered thing? That's what baffles me!

Women are much less likely to be victims of violent crimes meanwhile all feminists and supposed gender equality supporting people ever talk about is female victims! Everytime there's a discussion of murder victimization, it's literally always about women, who are like 15-20% of the victims by the way.

Imagine being 80% of the victims and noone ever talks about you. Of course you have to seek places where the issue is being talked about. And if everytime the issue gets talked about, victims of your gender are excluded... if course you have no choice but to try to end the exclusion of men from discussions about victimization. Seriously what else are we supposed to do? Go talk about it at places where noone is there to listen.

It's been far too long that male victims have been gatekept and excluded out of discussions about victimization. As someone who claims to support gender equality, why are you defending discussions that exclude the gender that has already been excluded far too much and far too long?

And you said that they never claim that men have no issues. Like do they really have to? They show that they think that by never ever reporting on it

[–]pro-frog -1 points0 points1 point 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

To your first point I'm honestly not sure where you're seeing progressives fail to acknowledging fearmongering of black men. I've seen it consistently brought up every time a black man murdered by the police gets attention, as well as in discussions of the school-to-prison pipeline and even black single motherhood. Frankly I think for many of the discussions you're looking to have about men as a group, you could see discussions about black men.

I'm not going to argue with you on male vs female victimization - you're right and the facts definitely don't lie. I am going to propose an explanation for that focus that is separate from "feminists hate men."

Looking through the article again, this specific instance was about a female victim of murder, but the imagery of self-defense tactics - wearing shoes you can run in, holding your keys between your fingers - it reminded me of discussions of rape victimization. And I think that may be a factor here; feminists are used to discussing statistics on sexual violence, which is definitely a gendered issue. And on an emotional level there's a lot in common: Women are unlikely to be killed by a woman. A woman walking down the street at night is not afraid of a woman coming to get her. When you take that lens, it may seem as if it doesn't matter what the facts are on victimization, even when the whole premise of the article is about a female victim. Broken down I really think this mindset comes out to "Women need to be kept safe from men, and men need to handle their own in-group issues." Which I don't think is a great response.

I guess my point here is that I think the much more likely explanation for the phenomenon is that it's easier to understand how a socially marginalized group, like women or black men, is harmed by instances of male privilege. It's a more nuanced perspective that suggests patriarchal social structures can also hurt all men. So it's easier to discuss how and why to break down those structures when you use a female victim, or a black male victim, as an example, even if it means ignoring other male demographics.

It's not a good reason to do it, to be clear. But it's not about hating men - it's about what people understand. If you're asking what could be done differently, I think pairing statistics on male victimization with alternative solutions to address the issue would be better-received than "Stop talking about this." Frankly I really think discussing male violence is valuable! The discussion needs to be expanded and the pool of acceptable victims to rally behind ought to include men, yes, but the core of the discussion is about why men are more likely to commit violence, and how we can stop it. That's a gender disparity worth exploring.

[–]DefiantDepth8932 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No progressives don't fail to acknowledge the fearmongering of black men. They fail to acknowledge how them being men exacerbates the issue, aka the gender aspect of it. Like the fearmongering is about black MEN. So there's certainly a racial aspect and a gender aspect, but progressives only ever talk about how their race caused them to unfairly be seen as criminals, and don't talk about how their gender also causes this.

I'm not asking you to stop talking about this. I'm saying stop talking about female exclusive victimization. Like yeah being a perp is a gender specific thing because most criminals are men. But anyone can be a victim of murder.

Like think of the people in the past, what you call patriarchial people. They also were much more interested in caring about female victims of everything and barely ever talked about male victims. For eg war propaganda posters from the Great War showed women being harmed to gain sympathy for the war cause. "The patriarchy" has always cared more about female rape victims than male ones, female murder victims than male ones etc. My question is, why are feminists perpetuating the traditional gender norm of discussing female victimization exclusively. Anyone actually interested in breaking old sexist gender norms would think of talking discussing the victimization of the gender whose victimization is never discussed and is taboo. Why have feminists continued the "patriarchial" tradition of showing much more empathy towards women?

The reason why we think feminists hate men is because all feminists have ever done is take away unfair male privileges. I've never fucking seen a reasonable effort made by y'all to take away unfair female privileges. Even though I've given you a crystal clear example of an existing female privilege you made it about some abstract male privilege that you made up just because you're only ever comfortable with the idea of taking away privilege from men but never from women. How do you expect men to believe that you don't hate them. Even the way you try to help them is by framing their suffering as a goddamn privilege. You're clearly much more interested in preserving the narrative of male privilege than actually helping anyone. The classic 'ideas over people'.

The traditional gender norms, what you call "the patriarchy" and what many people here call "gynocentrism" are basically trade offs where men have some good and some bad while women have some good and some bad. All feminists have ever done is take away the good men had, remove everything bad women have..... but since there's no discussions of taking away anything good from women or removing anything bad that men have. They always somehow frame the bad things that men have as "privileges". At the end of the day, all women are left with is the good, all men are left with is the bad....

Want examples of this behavior in feminists? Men had voting rights while women had exclusion from draft.. this was a trade off. Feminists only ever fought for voting rights for women but no exclusion from draft for men. In fact feminists even SHAMED young boys who didn't go to war. Results of this? Now women have the right to vote but men are stilll not excluded from draft 100 years later. Another example, boys and girls both had their boy scouts and girl scouts respectively. Feminists forced boy scouts to accept girls but never forced girl scouts to accept boys

One example of feminists perpetuating the "patriarchial norms" they seem to be fighting against.. when the boko haram kidnappings happened, feminists turned it into a gender issue that girls faced even though boys were facing much more extreme shit than the girls. When 300 girls are kidnapped by Boko Haram, meanwhile thousands of boys are tortured and burned to death, why do feminist organizations only talk about and try to save the female victims? How are they any different that the "patriarchy" they criticize? The so called patriarchy says save women and children first, and so do feminists.

All of this shows that feminist either hate men or at best the have zero empathy for them

[–]odysseytree 5 points6 points7 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If sisterhood really cares about violence, how come they wake up only when the victim is a woman? It seems to me it's a subjective point of view on violence for attention.

[–]elonsmusketer 3 points4 points5 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

pov: youre a sexist cunt trying so so hard to prove something wrong and failing

[–]HQLD 2 points3 points4 points 4 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Did they say they hate men, or did they say they hate male violence?

This article read like it was written by a fearmongering far right racist, with men swapped in for brown people.

"For the first time I can remember, we were talking about really tackling misogyny and tackling male behaviour." (Emphasis mine)

There are various other traits shared amongst murderers , yet feminists consistently fixate on perpetrators being male. Why? Because they are man-hating bigots -- it couldn't be any clearer.

[–]pro-frog 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Fair point on finding a quote, though in this context it's talking about changing harmful male behavior... it could've been worded more carefully but I can't see how it expresses hatred for men.

But to your last point.... they fixate on murderers being men because feminists tend to discuss gender disparities. Like..... the gender side of issues is... what feminism is there for. And it's really hard to argue that there's no gendered aspect to violence. Men are much more likely to perpetrate violence than women - it's not a matter of if, but why. Why shouldn't that disparity be acknowledged?

[–]HQLD 1 point2 points3 points 4 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

it could've been worded more carefully but I can't see how it expresses hatred for men.

It's a display of the author's misandry. What would you say if the article had been written in the same manner about black people and crime in the US?

And it's really hard to argue that there's no gendered aspect to violence.

It actually isn't, because there are traits about violent offenders that better predict whether someone becomes one than being male (e.g. lack of empathy, impulsivity). And the vast majority of men aren't violent offenders either. So there's really no reason to characterize violent crime as being uniquely male, unless you are a misandrist.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter