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

Women who say that they hate men because they're more likely to commit crime use the exact same logic as to why neo-nazis hate black people. The difference is that hating men is seen as acceptable.

FingersInMyEyes
October 7, 2017
36 upvotes
/r/PurplePillDebate
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 Women who say that they hate men because they're more likely to commit crime use the exact same logic as to why neo-nazis hate black people. The difference is that hating men is seen as acceptable.
Author

FingersInMyEyes
Upvotes 36
Comments 61
Date October 7, 2017 10:14 AM UTC
(8 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/74u3al/women_who_say_that_they_hate_men_because_theyre/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/women-who-say-that-they-hate-men-because-theyre.265479
https://theredarchive.com/post/265479
Top posts by FingersInMyEyes

Q4All: If a man and a woman both get drunk and have sex, why is it that the man is declared a rapist and the woman bears no responsibility? What happens when two drunken men have sex?

28 upvotes
August 30, 2017
/r/PurplePillDebate

Q4W: Why is it not OK for men to judge you by your sexual history, yet it is OK for you to ridicule and humiliate virgin men?

1 upvotes
October 14, 2017
/r/PurplePillDebate

Comments

[–]Ultramegasaurus12 points13 points14 points 8 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

The difference is that men are also responsible for the majority of good in the world. Criminals are mostly men, but the ones protecting you from them are mostly men too.

[–]IckyStickyPoo0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

The difference is that men are also responsible for the majority of good in the world.

No.

Criminals are mostly men, but the ones protecting you from them are mostly men too.

They cancel each other out. Women have always protected women though, without harming them (in general).

[–][deleted] 21 points22 points23 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Men have protected women much more though, and what's your definition of good then? This is all so silly....

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The comparisons between women and men on this sub sometimes (omg who is worse/better by 5%) seem so petty to me.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Men went to war to protect women. Your argument is null.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Women pushed every man out their vagina. At a typical rate of death that was directly comparable to male mortality rates in war.

And they had no more choice over that, than we did over going to fight.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And they had no more choice over that

Except, you know, not get pregnant.

There's no "not get pregnant" for war. Unless you want to go to jail and be permanently blacklisted.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Except, you know, not get pregnant.

Yeah, like us men coulda just not gone to war.

There's no "not get pregnant" for war. Unless you want to go to jail and be permanently blacklisted.

There was plenty you could do. You could run away.... Just like a Girl could run away from the marriage her father arranged.

You could hide when the pressgangs came by, as she could avoid rape or being forced by penury into marriage.

99% of women for 99% of history have had about as much control over whether they got pregnant.... as 99% of men for 99% of history had over whether they went to war or not.

Some generations, there wasn't a consciption for a war at all, lots of generations here and there. Plenty of decades or centuries where the wars were fought with voluntary warriors, or not fought at all.

But there were pregnancies every generation. And on average slightly over 2 per woman every time.

This is what /u/sublimemongrel was talking about. There is no point in getting into the 5% and 10% differences. Because the demands were ultimately different by sex, and can never be that directly comparable.

But your view that somehow only males suffered from particularly male issues, and females didn't suffer equally from particularly female issues, is just not credible.

Nor is the idea that men, are somehow, uniquely altruistic... and women are utterly unable to be altruistic.... credible.

HUMANS have great difficulty in being truly altruistic. Maybe 1:100 in both sexes. Mother Theresa/Mahatma Ghandi types.

What you're seeing is the beam in their eye, and not noticing the beam in your own.

[–]IckyStickyPoo0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Men have protected women much more though

You can call it protection if you like. I call it the subgegation of an underclass. Women would have been far better off without "male protection". If men had kept their dicks away from women at least until women were about 30 and had allowed women to study and work and become leaders and decision makers - we would have had a better, safer and more productive world much, much sooner.

A case in point is the fact that women in western europe from the 16th century onward worked in their earlier years and married in their mid-twenties - which enabled western europe to become a powerful force. Women STILL weren't allowed the same freedoms as men though, and if they had been, the effect would have been magnified many times over. A country that doesn't utilise its women to their greatest degree is either floundering or it has some incredibly rich natural resources.

what's your definition of good then

Not keeping others under the thumb or as sub-class of people. Helping others, and also allowing others the same freedoms as you yourself have.

[–]legizelle 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not keeping others under the thumb or as sub-class of people. Helping others, and also allowing others the same freedoms as you yourself have.

It's telling that you listed the passive aspects of being good.

[–]IckyStickyPoo-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No, I listed the aspects of being good that aren't motivated by selfish/monetary reasons.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

If men had kept their dicks away from women at least until women were about 30 and had allowed women to study and work and become leaders and decision makers - we would have had a better world.

Why do you think women must be "decision makers" first, and mothers second? Why not the other way around? Why do you think that "hard" male power necessarily ranks above "soft" female power, when it is so obvious that even powerful men have trouble "keeping their dicks away", where oftentimes it's not just "dicks" but "hearts"?

I think that if women realized that all the leading and deciding isn't worth anything without humane warmth that epitomizes within motherhood, and would be mothers first and everything else at 30, we would have a better world right now.

A country that doesn't utilise its women to their greatest degree

You seriously think that it was historically wide-spread for women to be bored? You think that, hm, you know, something like keeping the population at least stable doesn't count as an effort or wasn't acknowledged as such?

You're also contradicting yourself.... either women were underutilized and men did all the work, or they weren't. As for oppression, everyone was oppressed most of the time.

Not keeping others under the thumb or as sub-class of people. Helping others, and also allowing others the same freedoms as you yourself have.

Men "helped" a lot, other than that it's telling that you listed the passive aspects of being good. And please, how were women excepted from keeping others under their thumbs, directly or indirectly...

Like I said, it's silly... but so is this thread.

No, I listed the aspects of being good that aren't motivated by selfish/monetary reasons.

Please, there is no male of female ambition that can't be labeled as selfish with those blanket statements, making them meaningless. Women are selfish because they want their children to succeed more than those of others, Jesus was probably selfish too, relishing in his pureness and holiness, with his passive aggressive "dieing for your sins", the bastard.

[–]DumbledoresFerrari2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

No.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philanthropists#Greatest_philanthropists_by_amount_of_USD how many women are on this list?

Which sex has developed the vast majority of vaccines?

How can you possibly say no

[–]IckyStickyPoo0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philanthropists#Greatest_philanthropists_by_amount_of_USD how many women are on this list?

Are you serious? Plenty of women are philanthropists. But when you put up a list of which sex has poured the most money into philanthropy, then you'd have to also ask which sex mostly controls the vast amount of wealth of this world? It's men. And the men of your list had billions. And they were born in the 30s to 50s, at a time when wealth was even more in the hands of men.

Which sex has developed the vast majority of vaccines?

Which sex literally prevented the other sex from becoming scientists? And which sex had a life of constant pregnancy/raising children?

[–]DumbledoresFerrari2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Are you serious? Plenty of women are philanthropists. But when you put up a list of which sex has poured the most money into philanthropy, then you'd have to also ask which sex mostly controls the vast amount of wealth of this world? It's men. And the men of your list had billions. And they were born in the 30s to 50s, at a time when wealth was even more in the hands of men.

Obviously there's reasons why men have done the most good. Just like there's reasons that men have done the most bad. But that doesn't change the fact that they have done so, which is what's being discussed.

Which sex literally prevented the other sex from becoming scientists? And which sex had a life of constant pregnancy/raising children?

So you're describing men doing something bad. The whole point is that men do most bad and most good.

[–]IckyStickyPoo0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But that doesn't change the fact that they have done so, which is what's being discussed.

Your argument was that men have done more of it, not that they have done so. I argued that men controlled the wealth and had the ability to do so.

So you're describing men doing something bad. The whole point is that men do most bad and most good.

I explained that men do not do the most good. They DO do the most bad, but then, they also have the means to do the most bad. Women have not had access to that means.

[–]DumbledoresFerrari1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Your argument was that men have done more of it, not that they have done so.

That's literally what I said.. "there's reasons that men have done the most bad. But that doesn't change the fact that they have done so"

I argued that men controlled the wealth and had the ability to do so.

Again, you're talking about the reason why. Whatever the reason, they have. You haven't disputed this.

I explained that men do not do the most good. They DO do the most bad, but then, they also have the means to do the most bad. Women have not had access to that means.

They also do the most good - you haven't even disagreed with this, you've just explained (part of) the reason why. Which is irrelevant.

[–]infps 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Yeah, look up domestic violence in lesbian relationships.

It tends to be brutal and there's a good amount of it. It was "not publishable" until a lesbian published on it (because what's reported by social sciences is as much politics as science). It came out during my years studying for my sociology degree. I think the book was called "Betrayed" or "Betrayal" or something like that.

Women can and are often quite violent given someone physically equal or weaker to them. The majority of abuse of children is also perpetrated by women.

Anyways, plenty of XX Chromosome humans feel disenfranchised, and that is a sensation that tends to promote violence in humans.

As I was just saying to someone else, no one is "men" and no one is "women," so everyone has to take responsibility for themselves.

[–]IckyStickyPoo0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I am not saying men are bad and women are good. I'm simply disputing that men are mostly the ones protecting women and disputing that men are responsible for most of the good in this world.

However, I'll answer your specific points.

domestic violence in lesbian relationships

Actually, the percentage of domestic violence for bisexual women is higher, and mostly perpetrated by men (100% perpetrated by men in the biggest survey of this type). A percentage of lesbians and gay men may suffer from internalised homophobia - it's a bit hard to compare them to the general population.

The majority of abuse of children is also perpetrated by women.

This is probably true, as women are the ones around children 24/7. Smacking children is common. If we swapped and men were the ones with around the clock care of children, you would see very different figures.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

No.

Oh boy a blue piller not being able to formulate a counter argument? Color me impressed.

[–]IckyStickyPoo0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh boy a blue piller not being able to formulate a counter argument? Color me impressed.

It's a bit futile. All I'll get in return are the usual arguments that hold no water.

[–]andrewisgoodYou are a fountain of misinformation11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

This seems like the strawiest straw man that ever straw manned. What women have said they hate men because they're more likely to commit crime?

You seem to be race baiting. Do you work for Breitbart or something?

[–]max_peenorCertified TRP Shitlord10 points11 points12 points 8 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

It's not a strawman, retard. "women who" His argument only applies to those that use the logic he describes and it is the logic that he attacks.

[–]andrewisgoodYou are a fountain of misinformation0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

I don't know if they even exist, that's the problem. They seem to just be random punching bags to attack for no reason.

[–]ChateauJackPurple Pill Man14 points15 points16 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

People hating black people because of their skin color exist.

People hating jews because of their religions exist.

People hating women because of their sex exist.

But somehow, no woman has ever hated a man solely because of his sex. Is that your position ?

[–]andrewisgoodYou are a fountain of misinformation0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Misandrist?

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't know if they even exist, that's the problem.

So, you openly admit to engaging in a conversation on a topic that you have no knowledge about?

[–]Mattcwujust sticking up for the oppressed and voiceless women1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

His argument might be," I don't know of any woman who said that and I would know."

[–]andrewisgoodYou are a fountain of misinformation0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Have you been on PPD before? A bunch of people don't even know what feminism is.

[–]ianiemasns4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Right, because you don't have evidence right in front of you of a woman saying "I hate men because men are more likely to commit crime."

Nevermind that I'd bet a dollar that you've never literally read someone say the exact words "I hate black people because they are more likely to commit crime."

Yet you wouldn't hesitate to agree that the second exist, while questioning the first on the basis that it's ever explicitly been said in front of you.

[–]andrewisgoodYou are a fountain of misinformation0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure women have said they hate men, I just haven't heard this particular reason. It could be true but it seems like a random start to attack people for no reason.

[–]caesarfecitPurple Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Holy argumentum ad lapidem Batman!

Please go away and come back when you learn how to argue properly.

[–]andrewisgoodYou are a fountain of misinformation0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Forgive me professor.

[–]brewmastermonk2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow, it's like you've never been on the internet before.

[–]FiveYearsAgoOnRedditPurple Pill Man7 points8 points9 points 8 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Show us an example of a woman who says she "hates men because they're more likely to commit crime"?

[–]TheBookOfSeilCuckleberry Finn9 points10 points11 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I think he's speaking about feminists who hate men because "All men are rapists/burglars/vandals/murderers/etc."

[–]vitringur2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Do those people actually exist as a reasonable fraction of society?

I feel like it's just mostly some edgy shitlords that do not represent the majority of people.

[–]TheBookOfSeilCuckleberry Finn1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Do those people actually exist as a reasonable fraction of society?

In the feminist community, it seems that way. Some people hold those views, just with less vigor. If you ask them, they'll say "Statistics show that the majority of men are rapists/burglars/vandals/murders/etc."

I feel like it's just mostly some edgy shitlords that do not represent the majority of people.

I don't know the majority of people, so I can't say.

[–]caesarfecitPurple Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A lot of feminist cant about toxic masculinity borders on this, blaming men for the vast majority of domestic violence when in reality there's a significant portion of domestic violence incidents where the woman is an equal participant, if not the instigator.

Hell even blaming men for all the wars in the world comes pretty close, especially given how similar that is to what the Nazis said about the Jews.

[–]sublimemongrelBecky, Esq.0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah for real I think that’s a new one to me.

[–]IckyStickyPoo3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Which women are saying this?? And how is hating men "acceptable"?

[–]Antinatalism_Forever 1 points1 points1 points 8 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

All men commit crime, has nothing to do with race. White on jew genocide. Asian on asian slaughtering. Stalin.

What’s your point?

[–]alreadyredschoolRational egoism < Toxic idealism5 points6 points7 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The difference is that sexism against males is ok. Racism against blacks is not.

Society is gynocentric, get over it. The text in your flair says you should know that already.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Society is gynocentric, get over it.

Our society just HAS slaves, get over it.

Society is racist, get over it. - '50s

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Did more than a handful of women actually say this or is this yet another outrage that has been constructed by assuming that any woman that's a feminist must hate men?

[–]caesarfecitPurple Pill Man8 points9 points10 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Well we could talk about the Duluth model, which blames men categorically for domestic violence, often results in men getting taken out of their home in handcuffs even if they did nothing wrong, and was pushed by feminists to become the standard in domestic violence training for LEO in America.

Or we could talk about patriarchy theory which blames all of women's problems on a system that all men allegedly impose on women.

Both are widely accepted and promoted ideas by the feminist community, and both push prejudice against men and blame men exclusively for problems that women clearly play a role in.

[–]IHeartDay91 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

The Duluth model has been debunked as ineffective, and the patriarchy is harmful to people of all genders.

[–]caesarfecitPurple Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Be that as it may, it is still the standard model used by law enforcement sadly, and it is feminists who are trying to keep it that way.

And patriarchy theory is a quasi-Marxist conspiracy theory.

[–]IHeartDay91 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I personally agree with the theory of the patriarchy, but tend to disagree with how it's commonly used. Much like the ideas of privilege or intersectionality. Useful concepts with a tendency to be misused.

As for the Duluth model, when I was studying criminal psych, the textbook talked about the problems with the Duluth model (like it's ridiculously high drop out rate), and the alternative developed for corrections Canada, so I imagine it's being phased out.

[–]caesarfecitPurple Pill Man2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I found this to be a stunningly candid and self-aware take on the Duluth model from one of its creators:

"By determining that the need or desire for power was the motivating force behind battering, we created a conceptual framework that, in fact, did not fit the lived experience of many of the men and women we were working with. The DAIP staff [...] remained undaunted by the difference in our theory and the actual experiences of those we were working with [...] It was the cases themselves that created the chink in each of our theoretical suits of armor. Speaking for myself, I found that many of the men I interviewed did not seem to articulate a desire for power over their partner. Although I relentlessly took every opportunity to point out to men in the groups that they were so motivated and merely in denial, the fact that few men ever articulated such a desire went unnoticed by me and many of my coworkers. Eventually, we realized that we were finding what we had already predetermined to find."

[–]IHeartDay91 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yep. The Duluth model has some interesting ideas that can add some context to the complexity of family violence, but as a stand alone system, it's utter garbage. If it's still being used in the states, that's a huge problem.

[–]BiggerDthanYouBluetopia1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Well we could talk about the Duluth model, which blames men categorically for domestic violence

Oh no a model for domestic violence against straight women only mentions men as the perpetrators. How horrible. I guess that means that the model for domestic violence in native reservations means that only native Americans can be the perpetrators.

Or we could talk about patriarchy theory which blames all of women's problems on a system that all men allegedly impose on women.

That's a misconception of what they are talking about. It's not a conspiracy by all men to oppress all women, it's about cultural attitudes and well women are also part of this society so they can reinforce patriarchal attitudes just as much as men.

Both are widely accepted and promoted ideas by the feminist community, and both push prejudice against men and blame men exclusively for problems that women clearly play a role in.

Both are gross misinterpretations of what feminists are actually talking about.

[–]caesarfecitPurple Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Oh no a model for domestic violence against straight women only mentions men as the perpetrators. How horrible. I guess that means that the model for domestic violence in native reservations means that only native Americans can be the perpetrators.

That is a complete after-the-fact whitewashing of the Duluth model. It did not apply purely to straight women, it was used as a general explanation of domestic violence and it held men seeking power in the relationship as the root cause of domestic violence. Even the very creator of the Duluth model repudiated it, describing it as not matching reality, prejudical, and an exercise in confirmation bias.

That's a misconception of what they are talking about. It's not a conspiracy by all men to oppress all women, it's about cultural attitudes and well women are also part of this society so they can reinforce patriarchal attitudes just as much as men.

Ain't it interesting that when patriarchy theory comes under attack, it suddenly becomes some kind of formless omnipresent miasma of sorts. But otherwise, it's both the cause and effect of misogynistic men. Ultimately I hold that patriarchy theory is utter nonsense due to its foundation in Marxist class-based analysis which is fundamentally unsound logic. Neither men nor women are homogenous classes as you yourself admit. Once you admit that men and women do not hold homogenous views on gender, patriarchy theory becomes an obvious prejudicial stereotype/belief and it logically unravels. And the final deathblow comes once you consider that feminism would never have gotten off the ground had men not supported the initial push for female suffrage - a fact that completely repudiates the idea that men as a whole or society have a vested interest in keeping women down.

Both are gross misinterpretations of what feminists are actually talking about.

Kindly off fuck off your bullshit cries of "No True Scotsman" and "Strawman!" We both know you're completely full of shit on this, and I'm not going to engage in any further conversation with people I believe are arguing in bad faith.

[–]crackrocksteady7Jason tell me what you're chasing1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

theyre not wrong you know

[–]AutoModeratorBiased against humans[M] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Attention!

  • You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

  • For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

  • If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

  • OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd say it's different because men don't really feel threatened by women's hatred, whereas people of color are literally being murdered in the streets because of racists, and neo-Nazis don't care.

Also, while I would always be hesitant to state that hatred of men as a whole doesn't exist, it's either based in prior trauma or actually ironic. Saying "men is trash" on Twitter isn't the same as actually hating men.

[–]pinkgoldrose0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Men do weird stuff, but I think like all human beings they can choose nonviolence. Humans can do complicated things thanks to our big brains. The question is whether there's an incentive for men to be violent. I think the culture is always changing and the world is a less violent place than it has been.

I love muh man Isaac Newton so I don't hate men.

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't think Newton is a great "type example" for men.

He was an aesexual with what looks suspiciously like autism.

He's about as far as you can get from the typical normal male and still have a penis.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman-1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I wonder who these women are that say they hate men because they are more likely to commit crime are and why they would use all that extra emotional energy on hating randoms. Men like being violent, breaking shit, and blowing things up.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And so do blacks. Why one thing is ok to say, another thing is not? They are both generalizations.

[–]goatismycopilotPurple Pill Woman1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Dunno .

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