A common refrain from the manosphere is that feminism has empowered women to avoid accountability (what accountability they're avoiding is rarely specified, but that's another discussion). But why do those same people then scramble to shirk responsibility when a man, empowered by the misogyny that is spewed from the manospehre every day, decides to go on a killing spree? The Sydney Mall stabbing is just the latest in manosphere rhetoric predictably manifesting as mass violence by a man who thought he was entitled to women. It's always dismissed as being "mentally ill" and that they weren't TRUE manosphere adherents and that they shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of a few bad apples, but these are all bad faith deflections.

The mental illness is easy enough to dimiss since, first and foremost, it is a dispensation that is only ever granted for political expediency. Had the Sydney Mall attacker been a black man that killed only white people, nobody would be talking about his mental illness. Furthermore, even if they are mentally ill, that still means the manosphere ideology is still toxic enough to catalyze mass violence in those people, no doubt exacerbated by the fact that mentally ill individuals have difficulty maintaining stable relationships. But why acknowledge the reality of the situation when red pill is here to tell you women won't fuck you because you're short, not because you're a deeply disturbed individual with anger and impulse problems? Saying it can't be the manosphere's fault because the individual was mentally ill is like saying it's not your fault you pushed someone off a cliff because they walked to the edge by themselves.

The next deflection is always that these individuals weren't actually red pillers or MRAs or PUAs or whichever faction they belong to (they'll all pass the buck and say he belonged to one of those other ones, even though they believe ~95% of the same things), and my question is always which part of manosphere ideology would they disgaree with? Like if someone brought them to this sub and had them read the posts about the 80/20 rule, alpha fucks, hypergamy, hoeflation, delusional standards, and all the other assorted nonsense, which part would they refute? Which part would make them say, "no, that's ridiculous?"

Finally, the claim the manosphere shouldn't be held responsible for a few bad apples is prescription strength bullshit. Firstly, it is very specifically the ideas and states vomited out of the manosphere that radicalizes these men and pushes them closer and closer to the threshold of violence. And it's not just these men, it's all of the men who follow this ideology. Even if most of them never commit violence against the women, you can still easily see the hatred and vitriol dripping off the words written by these men, including on a near daily basis on this sub alone, let alone spaces where there aren't detracting voices. This "not all manosphere" argument is also excellent at demonstrating yet again the hypocrisy of these men who, at the drop of a hat, will tell you how feminists are still responsible for death threats made against Erin Pizzey in 1981 (and no doubt, responders to this post will claim it was actually feminists who radicalized men).

Why shouldn't the manosphere therefore take accountability for the repeated radicalization of vulnerable men and pushing some of these men to commit mass violence?