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

Chicago Tribune report finds 89.4% of shooting victims are male. The front page headline? "Impact of violence on girls is too often overlooked"

unbelievablepeople

December 10, 2016
1646 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-girls-violence-chicago-met-20161210-story.html
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 Chicago Tribune report finds 89.4% of shooting victims are male. The front page headline? "Impact of violence on girls is too often overlooked"
Author

unbelievablepeople

Upvotes 1646
Comments 86
Date December 10, 2016 4:05 PM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/5hkrv2/chicago_tribune_report_finds_894_of_shooting/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/chicago-tribune-report-finds-894-of-shooting.936066
https://theredarchive.com/post/936066
Top posts by unbelievablepeople

Woman takes boy to get circumcised against his parents' wishes, is convicted of causing grievous bodily harm, but gets no jail time

2238 upvotes
September 6, 2019
/r/MensRights

Rolling Stone magazine is up for sale, discredited rape story cited as a reason owners can no longer keep it afloat

1873 upvotes
September 18, 2017
/r/MensRights

College student whose false rape claim got two football players removed from school now faces two years in prison

1070 upvotes
June 16, 2017
/r/MensRights

The sectors that work the most hours are male-dominated, like logging and mining. The sectors that work the least are female-dominated, like hospitality and retail. Think this has anything to do with the gender wage gap?

689 upvotes
June 2, 2018
/r/MensRights

Boxing has been required for men at West Point for decades. Now that it's required for women there are suddenly concerns that it's too dangerous.

552 upvotes
September 22, 2016
/r/MensRights

Father warns social services his son's mother is violent and dangerous. Social services refuses to act. Mother shoots and kills son.

396 upvotes
March 16, 2016
/r/MensRights

Bill Maher: I think the country is anti-men

372 upvotes
September 23, 2016
/r/MensRights

Woman commits domestic battery on her ex in front of their child; newspaper treats it as a joke and says she was "hangry"

333 upvotes
May 29, 2017
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]PaisleyBowtie 285 points286 points287 points 9 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

"They must walk to school through gang battles. They have lost boyfriends and brothers to gunfire. They've seen countless shootings."

Just more "women are the primary victims of war" bullshit, remember people, men getting killed only matters to the extent it affects women. I mean, someone needs to provide for them! And pay those taxes for all the programs that disproportionately help them!

Male lives only matter as a means to an end, look at any government report about male suicide/depression; the economic cost from loss of productivity is always the first or second statistic mentioned. Even if its from the rare person who actully cares about men's suffering for their own sake, they mention its cost very quickly, as economics are the only thing they can use to convince those with power to care about men.

[–]zfighter18 46 points47 points48 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

They must walk to school through gun battles and lose husbands and brothers to gunfire?

That's not very self-aware.

[–]PandaAttacks 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hopefully not both at the same time.

[–]killerofdemons 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I read the comments before the article and I thought you were just making a joke. The fact that this is an actual quote from the article is horrible.

[+][deleted] -15 points-14 points-13 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

This is an unfair summary. The article I read is representing something that sounds more like "we always talk about how so many men die due to violence in Chicago - we forget that it affects girls to".

But I guess we all take from articles only what we want to read nowadays.

[–]lord-denning 10 points11 points12 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Is what you are saying accurate however? Do we indeed "always" talk about how men as men are killed, why it is primarily men that are killed, and even when violence is taken out of the equation, men are the ones that end up killing themselves all the time, both in terms of suicide and workplace accidents? And do we then "always" discuss what special policies, funds and support could be provided to men as a result?

Is that discussion really going on at length right now? And they decided to take a bit of a breather to talk about the ladies' perspective on these things? If so, great. But somehow I doubt it.

Spez: re-read my post and expanded it slightly to make clearer the distinction between workplace deaths and suicide.

[–]thedoze 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Women are only 11% of the victims as I read it, should they get 50% of the coverage?

[+][deleted] -13 points-12 points-11 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

No. It's not a competition about who gets the most coverage. But even if it were - we see one article take the women's perspective (not even 11%) and we lose it.

It's more about drawing women into the matter as well. Trying to attach more individuals than that didn't previously see it as much of a problem to themselves.

The way I read it - It's trying to draw the attention of the people that say "meh - just more violent broke men killing other men" and wave off the problems.

It is a different take on a matter written by a different author for a different target audience.

Distorting the whole situation into a matter of boys vs girls when most of the articles printed on the subject are not even read by this reddit audience here is not really helpful and here we are all making judgements.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

'15 died in a fire tonight, including 5 women and 3 children' is how we typically talk, you fucking liar. Women and kids are always the focus. Men are always the afterthought.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Isn't is possible that you are applying what you read on your small spectrum of articles on this sub and spreading that across to other/all news sources??

[–]thedoze 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Its not about "its just one article" its about how and what argument they are making.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I urge you to look at the various studies that have been done over the years measuring public perception of crime severity. There's been several, and all of them found the same general trend:

a) Exact same crime, female victim vs. unnamed victim? Considered 30% more severe, on average.

b) Exact same crime, female victim vs. male victim? Considered 50% more severe, on average.

In fact, in some studies (see Wolfgang from 1985), women are the highest rated victim group they measured, higher than senior citizens and children. In that study, the worst crime in the list was blowing up a building and killing 20 people inside, but the second highest rated crime of them all was raping a woman to death. Think about that for a second ... every possible way a child can be killed ranked lower than this.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

But they dont always talk about how violence impacts men. We always scream,' wont someone think of the women'. Shit, even without violence... 12 people die in a flood, and they act like the men were supposed to die, while the women and children get singled out for special consideration.

[–]Imnotmrabut 89 points90 points91 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Media Misandry just proves that Patriarchy Theory is rubbish whilst Male Disposability is very much "Reality".

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Both are wrong, the government doesn't care about either gender, just power and votes.

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

deleted What is this?

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Technically Patriarchy Theory is really just incomplete, but incorporating things like male disposability greatly changes the insights one can draw about society.

[–]Bascome 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Patriarchy theory is mostly wrong, not mostly incomplete. It defines in incorrect terms from the start, it can't continue with that reality to find objective truth no matter how much more is "added".

[–]Tedesche 40 points41 points42 points 9 years ago* (22 children) | Copy Link

FYI, this is the same paper that just published an article by Christina Hoff Sommers about the legitimacy of men's rights. People ought to contain their criticism to the article, and respect the fact that the paper is providing a balanced perspective in this instance.

[–]--Visionary-- 13 points14 points15 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

People ought to contain their criticism to the article, and respect the fact that the paper is providing a balanced perspective in this instance.

I reject this analysis, particularly considering they republished a WaPo article.

In other words, how many bad things can one do after one has done one good thing? I submit the philosophy of lauding them for doing the good thing, and criticizing them for doing the bad things.

[–]Tedesche 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I submit the philosophy of lauding them for doing the good thing, and criticizing them for doing the bad things.

I concur, which I why I recommended containing one's criticism to the article, rather than discouraging it entirely. I wasn't suggesting that the Tribune not be criticized, just reminding people to keep in mind that it's published articles we like too—even if they are republished ones.

[–]--Visionary-- 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Again, I'm not following. You're divorcing the act from the institution doing the act?

In other words, in the other situation, we should only laud the "act of publishing Hoff Summers" but not laud the Tribune itself for doing so?

[–]Tedesche 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

...No. Sorry, I think my "contain your criticism to the article" phrase is what's confusing you. I'm not suggesting you refrain from criticizing the Tribune; I'm simply reminding people to keep in mind that not everything the Tribune publishes is pro-feminist/anti-MRM. I've criticized the NY Times for the articles it publishes that I don't like, but I refrain from calling it a shitty paper, because it also publishes articles I like.

That's all.

[–]--Visionary-- 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Whether it's a shitty paper is determined if, on an arbitrary balance, they publish good things more than bad.

In other words, if you publish 1000 articles on how horrible men are to the point where it's easy to find one each week, and maybe one article in a blue moon on how they're not so bad, you can still qualify as being a shitty paper on this issue.

[–]Tedesche 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The problem with that logic is that this all takes place within the context of a world that has digested and now parrots 60 years of feminist dogma. It's unrealistic to expect mainstream publications to question the status quo so severely that they lose their mainstream audience. That's not how social change happens. It happens in small, gradual steps that add up over time, and thus a paper publishing a story sympathetic to men's rights is a big deal, even if they're publishing stories that are counter to that every other day of the year. Is it unfair? Absolutely. But the fact that the paper is willing to give page space to an unpopular sentiment is a noble act, and more significant than it pandering to mainstream readers.

Also, just to be clear, a news outlet's quality has more to do with the quality of its journalism than it does with its political stances. The Daily Mail tends to be quite sympathetic to men's rights, but it's still a fucking tabloid piece of shit.

[–]--Visionary-- 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

But the fact that the paper is willing to give page space to an unpopular sentiment is a noble act, and more significant than it pandering to mainstream readers.

Sure, and that's why they get lauded for when they do that in that instance. But one can still be critical of the institution as a whole while still maintaining the ability to offer praise when something good is done.

Otherwise theoretically having 1K articles that call for the gendercidal death of males would be mitigated by one article that says that some men are good, because journalists are beholden to "feminist dogma" and thus benefit from lowered expectations on this front.

Also, just to be clear, a news outlet's quality has more to do with the quality of its journalism than it does with its political stances.

Sure. And when you post bigoted nonsense against a group of people on the regular, one can point to your journalistic quality as being found wanting.

[–]Tedesche 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

All I'm saying is that criticizing a specific institution for doing the exact same thing 95% of all other institutions are doing is missing the forest for the trees. The problem is that there is a societal bias. Yeah, you can get mad about one paper evincing that bias, but it seems like wasted energy, and again—indicative of unrealistic expectations. This is distinct from something like HuffPo, which goes even further than the status quo in its bias on gender issues. I don't read the ChiTrib much, but from what I've seen of WaPo (the paper that originally published Sommers' article), they tend to poke the status quo fairly frequently for a mainstream publication, which earns it points in my book. I generally like the NY Times journalism overall, but it seems to have jumped on the Leftist "feminist spring" bandwagon, which I dislike. But all of these papers are going to publish more feminist-friendly material than MR-friendly stuff, because men's rights does not have the public support yet to get mainstream publications to start catering to those views. IMO though, that's slowly changing. In 20-30 years, I suspect feminists will no longer have a monopoly on gender issues.

[–]unbelievablepeople[S] 7 points8 points9 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Could you link to that article? I didn't see it.

[–]Tedesche 16 points17 points18 points 9 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

https://www.google.com/amp/www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-feminism-patriarchy-working-class-women-20161208-story,amp.html

[–]craftychap 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Saved, nice one for posting I missed this.

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Tedesche 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I mean, she mentions two issues directly:

It is men — especially working-class men — who are disproportionately crushed, mutilated, electrocuted or mangled at work. Activists lament the dearth of women in the Fortune 500, but they fail to mention the Unfortunate 4,500 — the approximate number of men killed on the job every year.

Men are also the have-nots in education. Hispanic and Native American women are now more likely to attend college than white men. Unless we find ways to help them, a large and growing cohort of young men — white, black, Hispanic, you name it — are unlikely to find a place for themselves in the modern economy. When men languish, so do the women who love them.

I don't particularly mind that she didn't mention the MRM directly. She is, after all, a feminist. I don't expect her to identify as an MRA or laud the MRM; that she acknowledges the legitimacy of men's issues and is willing to criticize her sisters for leaving men out of their quest for gender equality is enough.

[–]Ultimate_Failure 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

When men languish, so do the women who love them.

Well, then. There's a reason to care about men languishing.

[–]JonSnowsGhost 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Maybe she's trying to give a reason that selfish feminists should care.

[–]OgreMagoo 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This rubbed me the wrong way too.

[–]Bascome 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The audience for that article is not us, she knows who she is talking to and uses advisable small steps to argue with to increase effectiveness.

I will allow it.

(it rubbed me the wrong way too)

[–]perplexedm -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Not due to love for men. Putting basement for next election. Feminut bait articles to get general support for democrat votes. Utilizing gun control as an agenda for next elections and are generating support from both genders to traction their win.

The curtain will be pulled once general major support is won and it will be all womyn interests then on.

[–]qwertymcgerdy 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It is admirable that the Chicago Tribune supports men's rights, but they still were unable to overcome the urge to present everything in PC terms.

[–]Tedesche 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Eh, it's probably going too far to say they "support" men's rights. They gave some page space to a feminist with rising popularity on the Internet who has some controversial opinions about feminism. I don't recall them printing any favorable review of The Red Pill or anything.

[–]majortom22 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

@.@

That isn't "balanced" Offering a counter point could be argued to be that.

This is just biased bullshit. Unbelievable

[–]unbelievablepeople[S] 38 points39 points40 points 9 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

One of the reasons I posted this is that I think media bias is an issue that deserves a fuller discussion. I hear some people denying media bias, which I don't buy, but I also hear others dismiss newspapers outright as if there's no value in them at all, which is wrong as well.

There's actually a lot of good reporting in this Chicago Tribune piece -- they researched shootings in Chicago and gave statistics to show how prevalent violence is, and they interviewed a lot of people who have been affected by it. That's all good information to have.

Where the bias comes in is how they chose to present that information. Instead of simply presenting the data to their readers, they chose to highlight the impact on girls and de-emphasize the impact on boys even though their own statistics show that males are nine times as likely as females to get shot.

[–]YouDislikeMyOpinion 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Reminds me of Nightcrawler

[–]DarthTyekanik 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Because, you know, women are the primary victims of shootings. They lose their husbands, children, parents...

[–]thrway_1000 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

https://archive.is/BdO1E

[–]wanked_in_space 21 points22 points23 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well I don't disagree with them. Female victims are overlooked. The male victims are well known and actively not given a shit about.

[–]equiposeur 20 points21 points22 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ha ha. Female victims are rarely overlooked.

[–]superzepto 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Next time there's a plane crash or a shooting, listen to the way the news words it. They will ALWAYS put the emphasis on "Women and children are among the victims"

[–]jason-funk 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

female victims get the news for a month and a half and million dollar gofundme's. men get, at most, text at the bottom of the screen (unless they're killed in self defense by a white cop they were trying to murder, of course)

[–]Luchadorgreen 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In what world is it overlooked? If anything, it's exaggerated.

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 points5 points6 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"Asteroid to hit Earth wiping out all life. Women most severely affected."

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

That's narcissistic (aka female) personality disorder for you. They only give a shit about themselves.

Reminds me of a post I saw where some cunt whined that there were no women in "saving private ryan", and that there should be, because women were just as affected by the war as men were and they need a way to represent that.

[–]zfighter18 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow, that's God darn freaking stupid.

(I'm using Google voice to say this and my sister is right next to me, so no cursing allowed)

[–]Microsecond 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

From just a couple paragraphs in:

This year's surge in homicides to levels unseen in two decades shines a light on the risks so many boys and young men face each day in Chicago's toughest neighborhoods. But far less often told or understood are the stories of girls and young women who witness the violence up close or end up in the middle of the conflict themselves.

They are not dismissing the impact that violence has on men and boys, and this is not an article focusing on the topic of violence in Chicago in general. Rather, it is just a single article focusing on the effects of violence on girls in Chicago. Is that really too much? The Chicago Tribune has written many, many other articles on violence in the city, and most of them are indeed focused on male victims and/or perpetrators.

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

Virtually none of the articles that talk about violence in Chicago's streets or anywhere else talks about it with specific reference to men/boys. It's always discussed as either a general problem or one that predominantly effects people of color. At best, "black men" get mentioned, which is good, because they truly are the most at risk, but the sympathy is still attached to the word "black," not "men."

So, when an article makes special mention of how women are affected by this violence, in the context of a wider array of articles that only talk about it in general or racial terms, it makes it all the more glaringly apparent that men are being ignored as a demographic here, despite it affecting them far more than it does women. You see the same thing happening with recent feminist pushes to get women out of prison. The bias is astounding.

[–]ALTSuzzxingcoh 5 points6 points7 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Is that really too much?

I'm gonna go with "yes". Violence in general is a male problem and the environment in which it takes place is generally more taxing on men than girls. Yes, men are the primary victims and yes, in the widespread absence of articles discussing the impact of events on men and boys, yes, one such article is too much.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Jesus christ.

[–]jeff_the_nurse 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I agree that that headline is despicable, but to be fair, we always say that rape against men and boys is overlooked. It is overlooked, but aren't we being kind of hypocritical here?

[–]zfighter18 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think so, because the violence against women is addressed regularly almost anywhere it can be found. While the same can't really be said for men.

[–]jeff_the_nurse 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would have to agree with you there.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When the hell do we not talk about violence against women as a society? Outside of mrm when do we talk about violence against men? I mean besides when society states that it's actaully the women that suffer when the men in their lives experience violence.

[–]whats_up_doc 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

...for good reason apparently.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

They aren't overlooked, they just aren't treated differently. What they really want is for female shooting victims to get different treatment than male victims, treatment as in it's worse because it happened to a girl.

[–]uptokesforall 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

looks like this is focused on the plight of a specific girl that they were able to interview. Then to create a narrative they looked up whatever info they could to show her plight is all too common.

[–]KamiNekoSama 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And yet when you try to bring up something that affects men but mostly (or at least that is how it is portrayed) women it is just taking away the focus from women or it is too small to concern ourselves about it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

chicago tribune

meh

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Apparently 1:9 women to men means women have it worse. Which means they matter 10x more than men (or more).

I've yet to hear any feminist criticize the very real empathy gap the way the constantly whine about their fictitious wage gap (for equal work!)

[–]dog_baby -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In defense of the reporting, your explainer is a little inaccurate. This looks like a side piece to the main story about the statistics, not the central story.

[–]Tgunner192 -2 points-1 points0 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Chicago sounds like a dangerous place, maybe they should outlaw guns.

[–]smokeybehr 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Considering Chicago has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, and IIRC zero gun stores, that's already taken care of.

[–]Tgunner192 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Meant it as sarcasm. It can be tricky to express that thru text sometimes, my literary skills aren't great.

[–]theimplicated 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I mean what's the point when you can just drive an hour away and get everything you want.

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 9 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

What percentage of shooting perpetrators are male?

[–]Ultimate_Failure 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Relevant how?

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Tedesche 12 points13 points14 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The vast majority of teachers are female, ergo any problems girls have in school can be blamed on women. There aren't as many girls going into STEM, because female teachers are failing to get them interested in it and plastering gender stereotypes on them.

Also, women are the vast majority of primary caregivers, so the fact that there are still misogynist men in the world is their fault.

It has been noted that women don't negotiate as aggressively as men during salary negotiations, so the wage gap is really women's fault.

Ooh, you're right—victim blaming is fun!

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Tedesche 3 points4 points5 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

On all counts, I disagree that those factors are the only factors causing the problem, and that it's justifiable to blame an entire demographic as a result. You were blaming men being the victims of shooting deaths on men. I disagree that men are to blame.

[–]dontpet 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

While that's true you have to be careful not to assume that because a person is a victim that they were also a perpetrator.

Imagine if 1 percent of males are seeking to perpetrate a violent crime. All 100 percent of males could be a target.

There also the case of feeling afraid because of previous assaults or threats and carrying weapons with the aim of self protection. Things can escalate quickly when people carry guns I imagine.

[–]marauderp 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The majority of shooting victims are male because the majority of shooters are male. If men stopped shooting, then men would stop being shooting victims.

Hmm, let's try something... "The majority of rape victims are male because the majority of rapists are male. If men stopped raping, then men would stop being rape victims."

Yeah, I don't think your logic works. (Also note that I don't agree with either the original or my altered statement; both are stupid.)

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]zfighter18 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

....I'll give you that but it doesn't really work as a solution in anyway.

[–]WorkshopX 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The entire base on your argument is wrong and it is wrong in every case.

Men are not uniform group. They are a collection of individuals responding to an overlapping set of circumstances. No matter how big the subgroup.

[–]Badgerz92 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Wow. I was going to say you sound like an alt-right racist saying that victims of street violence don't matter because it's just black-on-black violence, then I saw that you're a moderator of /r/The_Donald so you probably agree with that too

[+][deleted] 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Badgerz92 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

feminists aren't the only assholes

[–]SirNemesis 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If you're not a feminist why do you post at r/GenderCritical?

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