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

"It's not Muslims or people with mental health problems who are most likely to kill you in a terrorist attack – it's men” Opinion piece in UK’s Independent

William_F0ster

July 28, 2016
83 upvotes
/r/MensRights
http://archive.is/mM9a1#selection-3547.0-3547.119
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 "It's not Muslims or people with mental health problems who are most likely to kill you in a terrorist attack – it's men” Opinion piece in UK’s Independent
Author

William_F0ster

Upvotes 83
Comments 64
Date July 28, 2016 5:15 AM UTC
(9 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4uz24l/its_not_muslims_or_people_with_mental_health/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/its-not-muslims-or-people-with-mental-health.944801
https://theredarchive.com/post/944801
Top posts by William_F0ster

Christie Blatchford: Judge’s florid ruling seems an attempt to blow up so-called ‘rape myths’

37 upvotes
July 23, 2016
/r/MensRights

‘European Sugar Mamas’ - Women sex tourists in Kenya

21 upvotes
July 29, 2016
/r/MensRights

Pat Craven’s ‘Freedom Programme’ (based on the Duluth Power-and-Control) used to smear political opponent as a perpetrator of domestic abuse … Just let that thought sink in for a moment.

12 upvotes
July 25, 2016
/r/MensRights

Anyone else in the UK seen this BBC programme ' Mr v Mrs: Call the Mediator’?

8 upvotes
July 19, 2016
/r/MensRights

Rising rugby star Zach Kibirige, 21, meets woman on Tinder; Woman invites him to her house for a ‘film and a cuddle’; Two days later, she reports him for rape; Kibirige says sex was consensual; Trial continues.

5 upvotes
August 5, 2016
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]v573v 30 points31 points32 points 9 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

Men are also most likely to shield you during an attack.

Most likely to hide you from shooters.

Most likely to resist being a victim.

Most likely to help in the aftermath.

Most likely to donate blood.

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

At least here in Finland women donate more blood than men.

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

10 day old account....just sayin the facts.

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

???

What?

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

Reality.

http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/4uz24l/its_not_muslims_or_people_with_mental_health/d5u8u82

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

Which word didn't you understand? Ten. Day. Old. Account. Fact.

[–]ichors 6 points7 points8 points 9 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

Sources?

[–]v573v 14 points15 points16 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Please note that I cited the same sources Janey Stephenson used with that opinion piece.

I will go the extra mile:

https://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/analytics-reports/CharacteristicsOfIndividualsAndEmploymentAmongFirstResponders.pdf

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs279/en/

[–]Moonvie 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Reality.

[–][deleted] 9 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]CaptainNeeMoNoy 8 points9 points10 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

This right here is why Mensrights is a great sub. Someone will always ask for sources and statistics rather than believing without evidence. I guarantee you in almost ANY feminist sub, claims that painted women in a positive light would be regarded as gospel and anyone asking for proof would be downvoted and probably banned.

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

There is a balance to be struck. People endlessly only responding to well known things by just saying 'source' whilst refusing to note the accuracy of proven sources elsewhere in the forum is not reasonable all the time. Yes, controversial views should be backed up where possible. But even academic essays thesis and so on don't have to behave in this way. And since we know its a tactic of feminists to sometimes just shout 'source' or be pedantic, its a little suspect to demand it of all things from all men's rights posters, regardless of context. And as seen here, it has derailed from the original point. Which is why it is such a common feminist method.

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

The balance is "If someone asks, you provide." People don't always ask for sources, but even if it's just to support the color of the damn sky, you should have something to show when asked. If there's any easily proven sources elsewhere on the forum, point to them and be on your way.

Also, /u/Moonvie not simply providing a source is what's derailing the conversation.

[–]Rethgil -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Pedantically only saying 'source' in response to commonly known facts whilst simultaneously ignoring clear points and not commenting on the unavoidable truths of previous posts IS both a feminist tactic, and transparently weak.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Really?

Because the people who tend to get the most outraged over asking for sources are feminists.

Feminists have all manner of tactics for justifying their refusal to back up their claims (not my job to educate you, don't invalidate my feelings, JAQing off, you're only questioning me because I'm a woman, banned!!!!, facts are a patriarchal construct designed to invalidate women, etc).

MRAs are the ones who are constantly having to provide sources since they're challenging the status quo, unlike feminism which is upholding it.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Asking for sources for pretty weird statistics isn't pedantic, or wrong. And if you want to play the 'feminist tactic' game, telling people that they don't need sources because a fact is commonly known is a feminist tactic. You're an idiot. Asking for a source of information to back up your claim should be an easy ask if you have a reason for believing what you do. If, however, you've just plucked them out of thin air...

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

Calling me an idiot for pointing something out. Real mature. And no. You're wrong. Playing naive and claiming a source is needed for EVERY fact is just immature and see through. As I stated. Even degree level essay guidelines clearly state marks are deducted for such things since it is not reasonable academic behaviour. Sources are good for debatable or controversial ideas. But to act as though not backing up EVERY SINGLE thing means it can't possibly be considered on its own merits is utterly ridiculous and yes, was a tactic started by feminists. I'm not sure why this makes you so angry or outraged/abusive. Perhaps a nerve was hit?

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

[permanently deleted]

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

Your comment was automatically removed because we do not allow links to that subreddit. You may use a screenshot instead.

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

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

Maybe we should stop these things once for all, then.

[–]ShutupPussy 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but she could also say if it weren't for these violent men in the first place we wouldnt need shielding or hiding.

[–]v573v 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I was not convinced they had weapons of mass destruction

Jean Chrétien (who has a penis) said this after seeing the same evidence Hillary Clinton (who lacks a penis) had seen when she voted to send American troops to invade Iraq.

4400 American soldiers were killed of which 98% were male.

100,000 to 600,000 Iraqi civilians were killed.

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

that's a great example, really. Never mind we're talking about individual acts of violence and not policies of war or the fact that naming a female warhawk literally proves nothing. If you want to share the blame of those soldier and civilian deaths on Hillary then you also have to share it with the countless men who voted for the iraq war and thus only reinforcing the author's point.

There are legitimate arguments such as the lack of support or other options for disenfranchised men as compared to women that draws them more towards violence or anti-male propaganda/bias that paints them as inherently violent and dangerous.

[–]v573v 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

From the article:

The easiest way to think of it is to imagine the military. After all, soldiers are paid mass murderers. Different wars, same tactics.

The writer places toxic masculinity at the feet of violent combat soldiers (in her western eyes they are male) not the people who sent them - a combination of males and females and for reasons other than a penis.

The foot soldier does not make the decision to disarm another nation's people - that decision comes from people like Hillary Clinton but not people like Jean Chrétien.

If the writer's points were true then Jean Chrétien the leader of a governing party of Canada would be the person to rally his nation to war and damn the lack of evidence. By not going to war he jeopardized relations with his nation's largest trading partners and put his own neck in a political noose. He took massive political risks and made the correct decison.

There were no weapons of mass destruction just as the evidence suggested which means that it was an illegal war. Hillary is not just a warhawk - she's a war criminal and should serve time for the people her decision killed.

[–]LedZeppelin1602 -1 points0 points1 point 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Also Most likely to sacrifice their lives for entitled, ungrateful, arrogant, sexist and hateful women like this author

[–]lostapwbm 15 points16 points17 points 9 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Now for that fun game of "Feminist? Or Racist?"

Mass JEW violence is everywhere right now. First it was Orlando. Then Nice. And Bavaria. Munich. Kabul. Fort Myers. Sagamihara.

As each massacre is reported, ministers and media leap to unpick each individual attacker’s motivations. Immediately, the snap judgments come out: if they were brown, they were a terrorist. If not, they were mentally ill.

Further probing exposes then their beliefs and contradictions: the Orlando murderer Omar Mateen worked as an armed guard for security firm G4S for nine years; the Sagamihara murderer worked at the care home he targeted but apparently believed disabled people should be euthanised.

As the attacks mount up, the individual profiling descends into morbid freefall and we overlook the most basic commonality: these crimes were all committed by JEWS. In fact, almost all mass murders are committed by JEWS. This is no coincidence.

I will not name these vile, violent JEWS – not just because this would give them the recognition they wanted, but because it’s unhelpful. Instead, we need to name the real culprit: toxic ZIONISM.

Toxic ZIONISM is what entitles a JEW to take a weapon and take other people's lives in the name of his values.

Toxic ZIONISM enforces the idea that being a “man” means not just being strong, but showing that strength through violence and fear. It means always being the one in control, having power and dominance over others at all times, by any means.

If typical ZIONISM promotes emotional disconnection – something that JEWS’s mental health charities are already trying to combat - toxic ZIONISM goes one step further and promotes the absence of empathy altogether. It also promotes the dismissal of anything deemed “ARYAN”, and the hatred of anything that contradicts JEWISH ideals around what it means to be a “JEW”.

The easiest way to think of it is to imagine the military. After all, soldiers are paid mass murderers. Different wars, same tactics.

However, toxic ZIONISM has its roots in the everyday: to prove this, we should look no further than the fact a significant number of these killers were domestic violence perpetrators. Not just these killers, but the majority of mass murderers.

The JEWS who massacre the public are the same JEWS who butcher ARYANS privately in their own homes. The same principles of power, control, fear and violence apply: instead of using violence to instil fear in one ARYAN, they scale it up to instil fear across nations. These JEWS walk among us, everywhere, but we only pay attention to their violence when it spills onto our streets.

If we want this violence to stop, we need to address the root cause and its everyday manifestations before they escalate. These JEWS were not extremists existing outside of society; they are products of it. They were JEWS drunk on the entitlement that patriarchal cultures serve them.

They did not impulsively decide to go out and murder large numbers of people; they were fired by a deep, burning desire for control.

Toxic ZIONISM hinges on having power over others; it demands inequality. As our world becomes more unequal, it becomes more violent. Toxic ZIONISM exists on political levels: in policing, prisons, immigration detention centres and controlling security measures.

[–]Midwork1 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

r/menkampf

[–]I_Am_Ted_Cruz 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

People aren't born Muslim. People are born men. It's more unfair to judge someone just because they're a man. It's like judging someone for their race; they didn't choose it, they just are it.

[–]OTTMGTOW 2 points3 points4 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Though, that kid in Mogadishu probably didn't have a choice as to which religion he was born into.

[–]ichors 11 points12 points13 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

So you attack the religion, not the people enslaved by it.

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

I agree with this. Problem is, when those enslaved by it claim that all atheists as terrorists. Trying to argue against the ideals of islam is as bad or worse than trying to do the same with modern feminism. Can't use logic, can't use evidence, can't use demonstrable fact. How do we attack conviction and 'feelings'?

Even the damn GOP seems to think 'feelings' precede fact.

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

That's worked how many times? You know they don't think they are 'enslaved' by it, right?

I don't mean to be a dick about it, but that's not a reasonable reply.

[–]LedZeppelin1602 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Feminists are always trying to deny men the right to be as they're made. If a woman wears short shorts and a man looks he's wrong for following his instinctual biological reaction and must be educated to be different from his nature.

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

Why do we even care what a feminist rag like this thinks? They are only printing that shit to get a reaction. Just ignore idiotic sites like this. When their page views drop low enough they will stop printing shit like this or cease to exist.

[–]William_F0ster[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Why do we even care what a feminist rag like this thinks?

It’s a fair comment.

But on the other hand, I’d recommend watching some of the highlights from the Democratic National Convention this week and considering what role something like that article plays in the political life of mostly Western nations.

And furthermore, I’d look at the Toronto Judge’s closing speech in the Mandi Gray and Mustafa Ururyar case that closed with his conviction this week, and think again.

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

So your answer to deal with feminism and its stupidity. ....is to ignore it. Um....

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

Stop trolling. You won't get a bite from me.

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

Oh you. So clever to call someone else a troll to cover yourself. Real genius level tactics there....

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

Or is it a function of men being more likely to take initiative and actually getting things done, rather than spending more time talking and analysing as women may do?

Unfortunately a percentage of these acts will be ill-conceived and wrong, but is it part of a larger pattern?

[–]LedZeppelin1602 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Women get men to do things for them while claiming independence. They asked men for rights and asked men for equality and men gave it to them. Unlike men they didn't get these things by themselves through revolution but convinced men to change society for them. To this day feminists want men to fix their issues rather than women stand up and take it

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

I'll steal a bit from Warren Farrell here: I think people who feel powerless but are told to feel powerful are the most likely to be driven to crime.

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

I could have written a computer program to generate that vile and hateful outburst.

[–]rg57 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's true. Men take the most risks... whether it is risks that harm other people (terrorist attack) or risks that protect other people (stepping in to stop a terrorist attack).

In any case, it's not just ANY men who are committing terrorist attacks.

It's almost entirely those men who have been told by their religion (Islam) that other people should die, and that they can secure their own place in heaven (and places for their family as well) if they do the killing.

While it is correct to blame "men", it's not very precise. We should be more precise... "Islamist men" (and a few women).

[–]Clockw0rk 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Insane hate speech and absolutely doing a disservice to anyone who pretends it to be valid.

PERFECTLY SANE AND HEALTHY PEOPLE DO NOT INTENTIONALLY KILL PEOPLE

If you kill someone, you will either be killed or be sent to prison for a very long time and everything in your life will catastrophically end.

Sane people do not commit murder. Sane people do not commit suicide. Your survival instincts are malfunctioning if you decide to commit the most heinous crime of taking a human life.

If you honestly believe that perfectly healthy and sane human beings can just start killing people for logical reasons, then you're effectively endorsing a reality where survival is completely random and the rules of society are meaningless. You're a psychopath.

The writer of this idiotic hate speech should be shot out of a cannon and into a fucking mental hospital.

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

While I agree with the sentiment of what you're saying here, there are morally defensible reasons to take another person's life that aren't psychopathic.

If someone is immediately threatening the life of your child or someone important to you, and you have an opportunity to shoot them, you're most likely going to, regardless of your sanity or level of empathy.

[–]Clockw0rk 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If your fight or flight response is set to murder and not disable, then you're probably a little off in the head.

Accidental killing is entirely a different matter, that's why intentional is there in big bold letters.

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

So toxic masculinity is what drives men to be violent to impose their values?

Yet most men aren't violent, suggesting most men's values include not using violence to impose their other values. Additionally, those particular Muslim/mentally ill individuals don't have that particular value, which means it was the values themselves that ultimately matter.

Further, what is the explanation for women using violence to impose their values? What of all the great Imperialistic queens of history, who use violence to compel men to do violence on their behalf?

Is that toxic femininity, wherein women use men to conduct violence to impose their values all while having the plausible deniability of being violent themselves?

"Toxic masculinity" is nothing more than a proxy for man hating. Its reasoning isn't consistently applied or examined, and it's just injected when convenient.

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

""Toxic masculinity" is nothing more than a proxy for man hating."

Sums it all up in a nutshell. No debate about Muslims needed. No shouting of 'source'. Just clear, to the point, and what we all know to be the issue. The article is a useful example of how low people will go to smear men and use the term of toxic masculinity to get away with it. We must point it out where we can and not stand for it.

[–]LedZeppelin1602 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This is hate speech plain and simple.

They were men drunk on the entitlement that patriarchal cultures serve them

Bolocks. Just cos they got away with their domestic abuse doesn't mean society allows it. The "patriarchy" has afforded women every support possible and gets no thanks for it

Toxic masculinity hinges on having power over others.

So does toxic femininity such as the woman drunk on power who label men racists because they cheated or use the sexist system to kick the fathers of their children out of the kids lives.

As our world becomes more unequal

Yeah, for men.

Toxic masculinity finds expression in fascism, sexism, white supremacy, Islamophobia, xenophobia, jingoism, capitalism, homophobia

The most sexist, homophobic and fascist countries and people aren't white. This is pure racism spoken here. Blaming white people for issues of other cultures

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

feminist master plan:

get married and have a boy

kick father to the curb

raise kid shittily as a single mom

kid grows up to be a terrible human being that kills people

blame toxic masculinity

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

It's hen pecked men raised by loveless mothers.

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

% of all men likely to kill you in a terrorist attack - 0.00000001%

% of all Muslims likely to kill you in a terrorist attack - 0.00000001%

% of all people with mental health problems likely to kill you in a terrorist attack - 0.00000001%

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

It's not muslims or people with mental health problems or men. It are human beings who are most likely to attack you.

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

Nice short reductionist viewpoint - it neatly highlights the idiocy of the original article. I like.

[–]MalusMalorum 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

There is a key difference and one feminists with their ideas of rape culture and similar are prone to try to conceal:

Men who commit acts of terrorism, mass murder and similar are a minority. For every such man, you will find a greater number of men, like the police men stopping them, who will risk their well being protecting others from harm. Moreover, you will find only very few men who condone criminal behaviour, and especially things like mass murder. And despite that, we actually do treat men much more harshly than women.

Now, we also have only a minority of Muslims commit acts of terrorism, and we will find Muslims who will fight against terror too. ...but we will find a significant number of Muslims who condone, sometimes even publicly, those very acts of terrorism, we have had massive problems as well with Muslims shielding terrorists in their communities. ...and we have a significant amount of holy texts and teachings preaching those very acts of terror.

...and despite that, we have many cases of Muslim criminals or suspects being treated either leniently or being ignored, especially in Europe.

There are no unified movements of men as men conspiring to commit crime, there are muslim groups organizing along the lines of their particular sect to commit violence against others.

Lastly, the statement of "most victims of Muslim terror are other Muslims", which might be questionable when you look at how other religious groups or apostates will be disproportionally attacked, even in Muslim countries, is seen a s a valid counter argument. Most people will ignore the fact that, indeed, the vast majority of victims of male crime are other men.

So even if we indulge this game of "let us exchange Muslim for men", we are not actually using the same standard, and it is in FAVOR of Muslims.

[–]William_F0ster[S] 1 point2 points3 points 9 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

There is a key difference and one feminists with their ideas of rape culture and similar are prone to try to conceal: Men who commit acts of terrorism, mass murder and similar are a minority.

Actually, I think what they are doing is a good deal worse than merely concealing the fact that such attacks are statistical outliers.

Feminists of the kind that wrote this article consider themselves to be true outliers of society - rebels and freedom fighters living a hand-to-mouth existence on the margins, forever trying to stay one step ahead of the haters and the forces of government that are out to silence them.

Whether they do this consciously or not, the result is the same: they cast themselves in the role of hero, as people on the margins and on the fringes of society from which position they claim to be able to see how it really exists (I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again, how feminists never caught onto the blue pill/red pill concept never ceases to amaze me).

The result of this is that they have to re-interpret what are actual statistical outliers so that these become part and parcel of the ‘centre’ (because most things that are ‘good’ in their eyes are good as a consequence of their marginalization - it’s this process of being pushed to the edge, both literally and figuratively, that enables them to see the real structure of society, to look behind the curtain of ‘reality’ and declare it to be a social construction)/

The author of that article makes this absolutely clear when she says (my emphasis):

If typical masculinity promotes emotional disconnection – something that men’s mental health charities are already trying to combat - toxic masculinity goes one step further and promotes the absence of empathy altogether.

[T]oxic masculinity has its roots in the everyday: to prove this, we should look no further than the fact a significant number of these killers were domestic violence perpetrators.

The men who massacre the public are the same men who butcher women privately in their own homes. The same principles of power, control, fear and violence apply: instead of using violence to instil fear in one woman, they scale it up to instil fear across nations. These men walk among us, everywhere, but we only pay attention to their violence when it spills onto our streets.

What she is arguing is not that murders are statistically significant when they are not, but rather that mass murders, terrorist attacks, the existence military armed forces and domestic violence are all the logical outcomes of societies in which "heteronormative ideals” are normalised.

In other words, she is packaging criminal acts of violence and war together with every day mainstream societies from which it emerges and blaming everyone for perpetuating a system that she believes is inherently violent.

Like other feminists of this stripe, this is what justifies an almost absurdly hysterical reaction to a young man approaching a young woman in the street to say “How are you doing this morning, beautiful?” as if he had punched her in the face and raped her in broad daylight - because both these things are seen as part and parcel of an overarching systemic violence against women in society.

The writer's solution to all this?

We must dismantle societal structures that entitle, enable and empower men to use violence in all its forms to exert power and control.

In other words, she’s calling for a Feminist-Socialist Revolution to disrupt capitalism and bring it crashing down after which women can finally live free from fear and oppression under the chains of heteronormative patriarchy.

Naturally, if I were to say this to her face she laugh derisively and say that it was me who was deluded and hysterical for believing such things … but then if I’m wrong, just what exactly does she mean by “dismantl[ing] societal structures that entitle, enable and empower men to use violence”?

Do you remember John Nash? The mathematician played by Russell Crowe in the movie Beautiful Mind? Nash used to believe:

… that all men who wore red ties were part of a communist conspiracy against him; Nash mailed letters to embassies in Washington, D.C., declaring that they were establishing a government. Nash's psychological issues crossed into his professional life when he gave an American Mathematical Society lecture … the lecture was incomprehensible. Colleagues in the audience immediately realized that something was wrong.

Feminists of the sort writing that article are really only different from Nash in one sense - there are thousands of them who believe it and those thousands make their beliefs sound sane and rational.

Feminists Betty Friedan, Kate Millet and Shulamith Firestone all clearly suffered from mental health issues of one sort or another - but unlike Nash, their mental illness has been used as proof that the Patriarchy exists and is harmful to women rather than the more obvious conclusion - which is that their writings are the ravings of women with sever mental issues.

Edits minor typos

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

Absolutely. I think mental health, or a lack of it, regarding feminists has become almost cool in mass media. In film, TV, adverts, online, gaming etc, feminists who pretty clearly have genuine mental issues are acting like Joan of Arc and telling everyone how their visions prove facts that say men are evil and to blame for everything. The modern disease our current culture suffers from is that such women are now CELEBRATED and championed for such sickness, rather than being looked at with at least a healthy skepticism. They generate cash as lots of tweenage girls and similarly unbalanced women agree with them, so any man who criticises is not just disagreeing, and not just questioning the Queens beliefs, but is also threatening the cash flow and revenue of said newspaper, magazine or blog and its associated advertisers. Little wonder then that such feminists respond so strongly and hatefully, as all dissenters must be crushed and kept quiet, for fear their views, and their questions may spread to the following faithful.

[–]William_F0ster[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

In film, TV, adverts, online, gaming etc, feminists who pretty clearly have genuine mental issues are acting like Joan of Arc and telling everyone how their visions prove facts that say men are evil and to blame for everything.

I would sincerely love to disagree with this … but I find I just can’t. It’s a serious mainstay of their movement that insanity is not only justified but almost endorsed in terms of a badge of honour.

Getting diagnosed with a mental health issue such as depression is seen as a vindication that their description of ‘reality’ is accurate on the grounds that living in an instance insane society makes being ‘insane’ seem normal, even rational.

It’s an extraordinary feat of political strategy to be able to turn an illness into a sign of health; to show that it is not the sufferer who is under stress, but the society that makes that person to suffer in the first place ...

The modern disease our current culture suffers from is that such women are now CELEBRATED and championed for such sickness, rather than being looked at with at least a healthy skepticism.

Yup.

It proves the thesis that women experience living under Western (allegedly Patriarchal) society as someone like Nelson Mandela - who notably stayed quite sane, in part by reading the so-called 'pale, stale and male’ collected works of Shakespeare during his interment - could easily (but didn’t) have lost his mind on Robben Island.

Little wonder then that such feminists respond so strongly and hatefully, as all dissenters must be crushed and kept quiet, for fear their views, and their questions may spread to the following faithful.

Do you know, in my own life, I find it slightly alarming that so many people are willing to defend the name, the symbol, feminism, and yet when quizzed it 90% of the time turns out I am far more well-read in that ideology than they are … yet they will persist in telling me I don’t understand it, I have misinterpreted it, I have confused X wave with Y wave, I have to educate myself etc.

Feminism survives and flourishes because no one believes that it can go bad at some point; no one, likewise, can believe that it is built on rotten foundations.

Funny that … no one believed Collateralised Debt Obligations could go bad, or that they were built on rotten foundations. Or at least, no one believed it until it collapsed down on their heads.

[–]MalusMalorum 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Well, that is true of course.

But it makes the whole masculinity versus Islam thing even more interesting in a way. There is a more or less inherent and unchangeable component of Islam (the Jihad, persecution of infidels and other, etc.) that directly links to terrorism and such. The Islamic faith does indeed, unlike masculinity, promote those things, even when people can ignore it and live their lives according to their normal human instincts and not the potential "cultural conditioning" towards violence and discrimination of the out group.

Islamic culture is in many cases the "enemy" feminism seems to want to portray masculinity as a whole as - and that makes all of it so weirdly paradoxical.

Then again, bullying those who are unwilling to fight backa nd trying to make nice with the bigger bullies is perfectly normal social behavior...

[–]William_F0ster[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

There is a more or less inherent and unchangeable component of Islam (the Jihad, persecution of infidels and other, etc.) that directly links to terrorism and such.

I know this is off-topic for this sub, but I’m not sure I can agree with that. All religions are inherently malleable and change their emphases on what is important according to their time, place, local influences and so on. In that sense, I don’t think there is anything fundamentally more violent about passages in the Koran than there are in the Bible, and definitely in the Old Testament of course.

It’s the overt politicisation of Islam for political goals through the Wahhabists of Saudi, the followers of Syed Qutb in Egypt, General Zia Al Huq back in the day in Pakistan and so on and etc. that are forcing this new wave of aggressive Islam onto the world. But it isn’t a necessary component of Islam any more than Leviticus is necessary to Christianity.

(That’s all in my opinion obviously, even if I didn’t sprinkle a few things like ‘I think’ or ‘I believe’ in there)

Islamic culture is in many cases the "enemy” feminism ...

A friend of mine who used to teach in a good university once told me an anecdote I thought was very telling - his female colleagues, all of whom without exception were feminist, though to different degrees, were complaining that almost none of the young women under their tutelage were even remotely interested in hearing about feminism and would switch off as soon as the topic was raised.

I know that sounds incredible to believe given recent events on campus, but still, it was true that the majority didn’t give a fuck. The reason was interesting - these were young women whose own mothers had been to university before them, sometime in the mid to late 1980s, and so these girls’ mothers had brought them up with feminism from the day they were born. So hearing a middle aged woman bang on about how important it was didn’t really excite them in any way as they’d been hearing the same stuff since they were knee-high to a grasshopper.

However, there was one signal exception to this lack of interest - the students most eager to hear about feminism were all those who were muslim.

There are many different ways that could be interpreted of course, and I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions about why that might have been.

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

Given that individual muslims can be pacifists and individual christians can go to holy wars, despite their own scriptures being at odds with that, yes. But that fact can be a bit of a red herring. Religions, especially those with rather constant holy scripture will tend to revert to that preserved core.

And all those things are definitely not interchangeable. Neither the old nor the new testament have a general prescription for holy wars, Islam on the other hand comes with Quran suras which prescribe fighting. Islam has a whole Holy book said to be dictated by god, the bible on the other hand only claims direct authorship for the ten commandments. There is a long list of differences, and while they are not a guarantee for a certain outcome, I think it is not helpful to downplay them.

Not all religions, or let us be more broad, not all belief systems are equal, both in positive and negative aspects. There is, I think, a reason why Neo Paganists or Atheists are not featuring disproportionally as terrorists or suicide bombers while muslims do (and in terms of terrorism, so do Neo Nazis, many communist groups and a good couple of others who share convictions that condone violence to achieve their goals).

No one tends to think it controversial to point at the link between neo-naziism and acts of terror / crime, even though there will be many of them not doing anything criminal.

Islam had its very start as a very political religion, it was the unifying faith of wast armies invading and converting their neighbors, it was the foundation of worldly and spiritual authorities until the breakdown of the Ottoman empire and with it its califate.

The idea of legitimizing war or a dynasty through religion is not at all new or unique, it has been used by the Holy Roman Empire, it has been used in the crusades, but given how central it is to Islam, it can explain why it is very pervasive.

Aggressive, political Islam is not in any way new or untypical.

Given how much CHristianity could change from a slightly weird fringe cult standing out for venerating its own martyrs (who just died for their faith without usually trying to make others die for it too) and being very non-violent to a religion blessing the slaughter or persecution of others, it is of course without doubt that Islam could undergo the same change.

Currently though, we have huge problems with great acceptance among muslims, and alas also young muslims of terrorism, of archaic punishments, of persecution of others...

We cannot ignore this and I want to stress again that I think it is not very useful not to look at what aspects of a religion influence such trends.

I find it not too surprising should muslim women be more interested in feminism, I just really find it surprising that they then will reinterprete their own culture and try to turn Mohamed, who was very clear about is prefence for distinct gender roles, into a champion of women's equality, as I have seen on more than one occasion...

[–]William_F0ster[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Given that individual muslims can be pacifists and individual christians can go to holy wars, despite their own scriptures being at odds with that, yes. But that fact can be a bit of a red herring.

I’m afraid I have to disagree here quite strongly. You appear to have interpreted my comments as a “not all” argument, but that was not at all what I meant to convey in the previous message.

Your argument, I believe, is that the Koran has "a significant amount of holy texts and teachings preaching ... acts of terror” and that "Islam ... comes with Quran suras which prescribe fighting” and because of this, Islam has an inherent and logically necessary drive towards violent conquest and forcing others to submission. In other words, you are saying that Islam is impossible to reform because there is, in a manner of speaking, an element of ‘original sin’ in that religion meaning that it will inevitably always lead to conflict and conquest.

My argument is the opposite of this - though it is decidedly not the “not all” red herring statement. While in effect you seem to prioritise the contents of the Koran over the people who choose to make it a part of their life, my argument is that it is not the religion itself that is inherently violent, aggressive and imperialist, but that the violence and aggression grows up out of the specific local, political, economic and social contexts in which it currently manifests.

In other words, I consider it important to distinguish the religion (as represented by it’s texts: the Koran and the Haddith; by its traditions and rituals: e.g. washing hands and feet before prayer or the Hajj; and its holy places e.g. Mecca) and its religionists, i.e. its practitioners. Because to a greater or lesser degree, its practitioners actively contribute to the political life of the societies that they live in (either negatively, positively or somewhere in-between). As I said earlier:

It’s the overt politicisation of Islam for political goals through the Wahhabists of Saudi, the followers of Syed Qutb in Egypt, General Zia Al Huq back in the day in Pakistan and so on and etc. that are forcing this new wave of aggressive Islam onto the world.

As you can see, for me to cite Wahhabism as having political significance is very far from making a “not all” argument - Wahhabism has done a great deal to finance and spread a far more purist and one could say ‘Bolshevik’ interpretation of Islam, i.e. an International movement with a coherent set of politics. They have, for example, paid for educational textbooks that present Jews as evil and had these distributed to mosques around the world for the teaching/indoctrination of children.

As I understand, you are saying they would inevitably do this because the Koran says so. I disagree - I think these are people with a particular set of insidious values such as hubristic pride (they see themselves as the chosen people of God) and intolerance (their unwillingness to mix with ‘Kuffar’ or be ‘infected’ by what they consider to be ‘Kuffar’ ways) and they therefore are interpreting the Koran to support the political view they already held - not the reverse (your suggestion).

I can say this with some confidence because the European Reformation and the conflicts that followed it, the 30 years war and English Civil War were all at least as much driven by politics as they were by any religious consideration. In fact, what it’s hard to understand from a 21st century western and secular perspective is there was no real distinction for Martin Luther, Gustavus Adolphus, Ignatious Loyola, Oliver Cromwell etc. between religion and politics - there were Earthly powers and there were divine powers, but as these two spheres frequently overlapped with one another it was almost impossible to distinguish the two (e.g. King’s had Earthly powers that were said to be bestowed upon them by Divine Right; Popes were Gods vicars on Earth, yet clearly they had huge political influence on monarchs and so on).

The 30 years war between Catholics and Protestants was a bloody conflict on the scale and scope of the Democratic Republic of Congo in our times. It’s estimated a full third of the population of Germany was annihilated in those religious wars and the wars themselves - much like those in DRC - were also just as much an orgy of looting, mass rape and chaos by bands of roving bandits and child soldiers as Africa experienced.

So I say again, it’s not the religion, but the people who practice it in any given time or place that really count.

Islam had its very start as a very political religion, it was the unifying faith of wast armies invading and converting their neighbours …

Yes, it did and that’s quite true. However, it isn’t inevitable on that basis that it should still be that way now (I mean, I agree that in many ways it is being heavily influenced by political notions of conquest e.g. the Wahhabists - but that isn’t a necessary component of the religion itself).

The Old Testament is replete with the Lord investing his strength in this hero or that army to smite the Philistines and pretty much anyone else that gets in there way. It would be almost absurdly easy to go through the Bible and find passages supporting violent conquest and action.

Aggressive, political Islam is not in any way new or untypical.

This is again true, but it is because of when and where it has arisen not specifically because it is compelled to do so by the Koran and the Haddith.

Currently though, we have huge problems with great acceptance among muslims, and alas also young muslims of terrorism, of archaic punishments, of persecution of others...

Well, in many ways we are in a vicious circle of isolation leading to resentment and prejudice that justifies further isolation leading to yet more resentment and so on and so on.

If you live in an echo chamber in which it is widely believed that the political wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere are in fact religious crusades to exterminate the Islamic faith and when you emerge from that chamber to go it in public you have abuse hurled at you for being a “terrorist" or "Paki scum” it seems attractive enough to go back into the safety of your echo chamber.

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

Why do we see so few Feminists spreading this kinds of sexist hatred, that it's men as a class who are responsible for terrorism? It looks so perfectly normal view. My guess is that it's for the same reason why Hitler and Himmler kept the final solution secret. Feminists know that most women don't like their aggressive hatred towards men.

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

We see plenty of feminists claim such hateful rubbish. Just Google it and its there to see.

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