~ archived since 2018 ~

This idiots really need to read the "Yes it's systemic" graphic. They're really so consumed by their ignorance of all the systemic misandry

June 4, 2021
post image

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill content, including various subreddits and blogs. This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/EverydayMisandry.

/r/EverydayMisandry archive

Download the post

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

Post Information
Title This idiots really need to read the "Yes it's systemic" graphic. They're really so consumed by their ignorance of all the systemic misandry
Author DefiantDepth8932
Upvotes 72
Comments 13
Date June 4, 2021 7:31 AM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit /r/EverydayMisandry
Archive Link
Original Link
Red Pill terms in post

[–]DefiantDepth8932[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

here's the "Yes It's systemic graphic".

[–]FinallyReborn 8 points9 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Lol, fucking retards, It honestly amazes me how my genuine hatred towards feminism grows and grows per-day. (Comment 1/2).

Systemic Oppression.

What systemic fucking oppression? Women, white women especially are among the most privileged group of all-time, they barely face a shred of inequality let alone systemic inequality.

Men's systemic inequalities outweigh that of black people - It's hypocritical that these feminists keep trotting out BLM agendas when most black issues are just enhanced gender issues. White men (the most privileged group of men) statistically have it harder than black women (the most disadvanted group of women).

Partner Killings.

And men are literally killed at very similar rates to women. In the US, roughly 65% of intimate partner killings are directed towards women, which is a slight majority, but once you start adjusting that to include assisted suicides and staged suicides, just as many men are killed by an intimate partner as women.

Also including killings where women used a payed killer, lover, friend, and so on to commit violence on their behalf, which subsequently gets recorded either as being both perpetrated and instigated by the third-party male, or, and even if the wife is found to be implicated, as a "multiple-offender" killing without reference to the wife. Meaning the rates that women kill their male partners would be understated, and most possibly could be killing their partners at higher rates then men.

Wives also tend to murder by subterfuge (classically through poisoning) and I'd wager that these types of homicide go undetected far more than the overt actions of their male counterparts do.

As for motivations behind partner killings, the rate that men and women killed their partners 40+ years ago were roughly equal, but once domestic violence shelters started opening up for women, the rates women killed their partners starting decreasing, whereas there are next to no male shelters for men, so women have an escape route when men largely don't.

But there is conflating evidence to the motivation behind domestic homicides for modern women, for instance, this study found that financial gain is one of the most common motivators for women who kill, and disproves the idea that women who kill their partners are only ever acting defensively against "abusers."

This suggests women usually kill out of "malice", whereas men usually kill out of "self-defence."

Honour Killings.

Here is a report from the Danish Immigration Service’s fact-finding mission to Erbil, Sulemaniyah and Dahuk in Kurdistan called "Honour Crimes against Men in Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI) and the Availability of Protection."

Hassan Berwari, Country Representative, Diakonia, Dahuk, stated that women, as well as men, are victims of honour crimes, and both are being killed for honour offenses. It was emphasized that men are equally at risk of becoming victims of honour crimes as women.

The risk of falling victim to revenge because of an honour-related offense is real and can be long-term. Reference was made to an incident in Sulemaniyah where a man still fears for his life 18 years after he wronged a family’s honour.

Khanim R. Latif, Asuda, Sulemaniyah, stated that male victims of honour disputes are much less likely than women to find assistance and protection from the police and/or from other authorities as well as NGOs. Basically, men who are under threat of an honour crime, such as killing, only have the option to flee the country.

Dr. Jwan Ihsan Fawzi, University of Sulemaniyah, confirmed Khanim R. Latif’s observation that male victims of honour threats are much less likely than women to find assistance and protection from the police and/or other authorities and NGOs. There are only shelters for accommodating women, and there are no NGOs or governmental institutions that address the issue of men as victims of honour threats.

Clearly honour killings are not just killings of women. Yet the media and the larger public for years have kept on treating it as such, and this has resulted in a lack of services and aid for male victims of honour threats.


This just makes me fucking laugh.

No, FGM is not worse. I've seen a lot of pure stupidity and bullshit trotted out by people who believe that there is a world of difference between FGM and MGM, who believe that FGM is a serious issue whereas MGM is nothing big to be concerned about, and it needs to stop. It really does.

There are four major types of FGM as classified by the WHO.

  • Type I. Partial or total removal of the clitoris and/or the prepuce (clitoridectomy). When it is important to distinguish between the major variations of Type I mutilation, the following subdivisions are proposed: Type Ia, removal of the clitoral hood or prepuce only; Type Ib, removal of the clitoris with the prepuce.
  • Type II. Partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora, with or without excision of the labia majora (excision). When it is important to distinguish between the major variations that have been documented, the following subdivisions are proposed: Type IIa, removal of the labia minora only; Type IIb, partial or total removal of the clitoris and the labia minora; Type IIc, partial or total removal of the clitoris, the labia minora and the labia majora.
  • Type III. Narrowing of the vaginal orifice with creation of a covering seal by cutting and appositioning the labia minora and/or the labia majora, with or without excision of the clitoris (infibulation). When it is important to distinguish between variations in infibulations, the following subdivisions are proposed: Type IIIa, removal and apposition of the labia minora; Type IIIb, removal and apposition of the labia majora.
  • Type IV. All other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example: pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.

I will grant that there are a few African countries where infibulation is definitely widespread, such as Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia, and Sudan. In Djibouti 67% of women have been infibulated, and in Somalia infibulation represents 76% of FGM cases. However, in many African countries where FGM is practiced it is usually less severe.

That is a significant, significant overestimation of how common the "worst" kind of FGM is. Infibulation (the "worst" kind of FGM) actually accounts for only 10% of FGM cases across Africa, according to a 2007 estimate generated by P. Stanley Yoder and Shane Khan.

So I think nearly anybody reasonable would be able to concede that circumcision, the standard form of MGM, is about just as severe as Type Ia and Type IIa FGM, and more invasive than type IV FGM.

And there are forms of MGM which are much more severe than circumcision. There's subincision, and there are also practices like castration. The latter form of MGM has been around for centuries. While it used to be far more common in the past it still does occur today in less developed countries, especially India.


Here is a Danish study that shows that circumcised boys have an increased risk of developing autism spectrum disorders (ASD) and hyperactivity disorder. The study's sample size is large, with a total of 342,877 boys born between 1994 and 2013 participating in the study.

Ritual circumcision among Danish boys is linked to an overall 46–62% increase in ASD risk in the first 10 years of life, with the upper risk estimate obtained after restriction to the period with the most complete data. More strikingly, risk was 80–83% increased in the first 0–4 years of life, an increase that was restricted to infantile autism. Non-therapeutic circumcision is uncommon in Denmark outside Jewish and Muslim communities, but due to our study’s national coverage over two decades.

[–]FinallyReborn 10 points11 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

(Comment 2/2).

Yet another study showed higher rates of alexithymia (a personality trait disorder where those affected have difficulties in identifying and expressing emotions) among men who were circumcised as infants.

The circumcised men had age-adjusted alexithymia scores 19.9% higher than the intact men; were 1.5x more likely to have high alexithymia scores; were 2.3x less likely to have low alexithymia scores; had higher prevalence of two of the three alexithymia factors (difficulty identifying feelings and difficulty describing feelings); and were 4.5x more likely to use an erectile dysfunction drug. Alexithymia in this population of adult men is statistically significant for having experienced circumcision trauma and for erectile dysfunction drug use.

Here is an account from a doctor who attempted to observe the effects of circumcision on the infant brain by using an fMRI and/or PET scan. Scans were conducted prior to, during and after circumcision.

We tightly strapped an infant to a traditional plastic “circumstraint” using Velcro restraints. We also completely immobilized the infant’s head using standard surgical tape. The entire apparatus was then introduced into the MRI chamber. Since no metal objects could be used because of the high magnetic fields, the doctor who performed the surgery used a plastic bell with a sterilized obsidian bade to cut the foreskin. No anesthetic was used.

The baby was kept in the machine for several minutes to generate baseline data of the normal metabolic activity in the brain. This was used to compare to the data gathered during and after the surgery. Analysis of the MRI data indicated that the surgery subjected the infant to significant trauma. The greatest changes occurred in the limbic system concentrating in the amygdala and in the frontal and temporal lobes.

A neurologist who saw the results postulated that the data indicated that circumcision affected most intensely the portions of the victim’s brain associated with reasoning, perception and emotions. Follow up tests on the infant one day, one week and one month after the surgery indicated that the child’s brain never returned to its baseline configuration. In other words, the evidence generated by this research indicated that the brain of the circumcised infant was permanently changed by the surgery.

The most disturbing part, though, comes in the next paragraph.

Our problems began when we attempted to publish our findings in the open medical literature. All of the participants in the research including myself were called before the hospital discipline committee and were severely reprimanded. We were told that while male circumcision was legal under all circumstances in Canada, any attempt to study the adverse effects of circumcision was strictly prohibited by the ethical regulations. Not only could we not publish the results of our research, but we also had to destroy all of our results. If we refused to comply, we were all threatened with immediate dismissal and legal action.

So they considered the actions of the researchers "unethical" for attempting to study circumcision's effects on the baby, and ordered them to destroy their evidence because it showed the adverse effects of circumcision.

This is an extremely concerning anecdote, and it makes me wonder how much evidence against circumcision has been suppressed because it didn't conveniently fit the prevailing narrative.


How are women targeted and men aren't? It's a literal fact men specifically target other men in crimes.

The robbers focused their discussions on gaining the males ’compliance, not the females. He only references to the female victims in these cases concern either their screaming or their attempts to get a non-compliant mate to give the robber what he demanded. Thus, of the 40 incidents of robbery committed by males analysed here, only five involved female victims, with three being incidents in which a man or group of men had robbed a couple, or collection of couples.

Thus, only two cases were exclusively men robbing women, both committed by lone offenders. One robbed a lone female, the other robbed two females. Mark described robbing two females under the influence of an alcohol/Valium cocktail. In the interview, he expressed considerable shame for his actions: I robbed a girl as well so it makes it so much worse, I was heartbroken, I gutted her, I don’t do shit like that. The other male, Thomas, who robbed a lone female, also said that he was ashamed of having robbed a woman. In fact, he went out of his way to suggest that such activities were not typical of his modus operandi: I never done anything like that before, that’s not really me, I feel terrible that I robbed that woman so I don’t want to talk about it really, I am so ashamed of myself.

A number of other men in our sample offered up explanations for why one should never rob women. In outlining how he chose targets, Mark2 interjected: You must be thinking I have no morals. I wouldn’t go out and rob an old person. I would look for a bloke, It wouldn’t be right to be robbing women and little kids or anything like that. When asked if he had ever robbed a woman, John2 replied: Yeah, but not violently, generally I don’t want contact with women because I don’t like to be violent with them, I never hit a woman in my life. Then he expressed empathy with the potential female victim: It’s just that if it was my mother or sister, it is all right to nick their bag, but not alright to hit them [women].

Also, let's ignore the fact that both men and women are more likely to kill men than women. 81% of the victims men killed were male, compared to 78% for women. Meaning, menicide is more of a widely spread issue than femicide.

Here is another study regarding gendercide, finding men and boys are specifically targeted in war.

Reports also indicate that civilian boys and men are increasingly targeted. An “able-bodied male” becomes a legitimate object of aggression regardless of his civilian status. Boys and men have been systematically separated from women and children and killed.

Most recent wars display this pattern, including the wars in Bosnia, Kosovo, Timor, Rwanda and Chechnya. Across very different local scenarios, two common patterns emerge—increased genderization and targeting of boys/men.

[–]J3hruuuuu 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What a legend

[–]Kuato2012 1 point2 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

I didn't remove your comment, so chill the fuck out.

[–][deleted]  (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Kuato2012 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Well it's just me and the automod, and I didn't remove your comment. This is the first time I've seen it.

I suspect one of your links tripped reddit's sitewide spam filter. Or you made a link to another subreddit and didn't use an np link (the automod should have have notified you if that's the case).

I can approve your comment, and you can lose the hostile attitude.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link



Any time a man kills a woman.

If this happened to a woman, they'd call it a gender-based attack or femicide, but when the genders are reversed it's just regular old homicide.

[–]czerdec 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What exactly is the supposed "system" that is demanding the killing of wives and girlfriends? Is the killing evenly distributed across social classes?

If the killing is concentrated among the very poor, why assume that misogyny is the driving force rather than economics?

[–]hpdra9oniz3r 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

is this satire? i can’t tell

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Fun fact: men don’t like when you say you want to kill them.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Saying someone is a "fragile male" when he brings up legitimate points about something is literally the same as saying someone is a pussy and needs to man up, but with a politically correct filter over it. No progress whatsoever.

[–]TheAutisticSchoolboy 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

The reality is not Misogyny > Misandry, it's Misogyny = Misandry.

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

© TheRedArchive 2023. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter