~ archived since 2018 ~


May 22, 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 This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/EverydayMisandry.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

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

My thought is that the person who wrote that does not think much. How is "women are better caretakers" sexism against women?

The idea behind this is the same one as always: any gender difference, no matter who it benefits and who it hurts, is sexism against women, the only possible victims of sexism.

It's the monopoly on misery.

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

False. Both genders can be targets of sexism. And in modern society, the two are constantly throwing stones at each other.

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

"black people who complain about racism are just suffering from racism against white people, they were only slaves because people thought white people couldn't work well"

[–]CyclopeWarrior 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Women having custody was only made a thing after child support and alimony were available. The caretaker excuse is just there to sound pc.

[–]a-man-from-earth 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I think a lot of sexism cuts both ways, and contains both misandry and misogyny, because it is based on traditional gender expectations.

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

Domestic abuse by women goes unreported/uninvestigated because women are viewed as weaker?

Wait, what?

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

Individual situations vary a lot and maybe that person has found a place where that is the case. Then again, it was posted on twitter.

First of all, strength is probably something close to a normal distribution - at least not constant and people know that, otherwise weight classes would not even exist and doping (steroids etc.) would be legal. Assuming women to be weaker on average would not logically explain why one willingly ignores the huge overlapp as well as things like weapons, drugs etc. Real-life has no rules and strength is less important than some people want to believe. Assuming all women to be weaker than all men is no less wrong than the reverse. It is not a privilege to be denied reality. While it is therefore a case of prejudice, it does lead to discrimination against men in favor of women - therefore being sexism against men. There might be issues where it's the other way around and that would then be sexism against women.

Next, women are seen as weaker than what? Than what would be needed to kill someone who is required to be invincible to be worth a thing? Very surprising /s. The effects hold true regardless of the perpetrator. People would rather sacrifice men, report violence against men less often overall (even by men), are more likely to electroshock them for money, show lower guilt attributions towards women and experience less sympathy as victims even when the outcome of the crime is already obvious or there is a huge crowd watching it. Even if people watch the exact same video of the exact same officer using the exact same force, their beliefs on the officers gender will manifest itself in different (internal vs. external) attributions in order to preserve our perception of women as simply better (officers in this case - i.e. more effective, trustworthy...) - that effect might differ for emotions like anger, but I'm talking about physical force right now. Looking at the situation of the tweet, a man is required to be irrationally strong in order for his life to be valued - or to protect his life, really - a perception (the inaccurate perception of his strength) that is incompatible with reality and literally kills people whilst a woman might be underestimated in strength at the same time (as shown above, this is not neccessary for these effects), resulting (in the example given by the twitter user) in protection, saved lives, underdog bonus and diminished consequences for the very behaviour that might kill a man infront of a laughing crowd that would still be happy to support her even after seeing her overpowering the man for whatever reason (genes, natural variance, training, weapon, outnumbering, invisible hormonal disorders, man not daring to even try fighting back etc.). To have the audacity to call that sexism against women is so incredibly insensitive and naive that I hope it might be nothing but an attempt to justify misandry. Women are accurately and thankfully considered to be vulnerable humans in a way someone who lacks inherent value in the eyes of society is not. Not considering men to be vulnerable is dehumanizing. Not considering men to be in need of help is dehumanizing. Not allowing men to show basic human behavior and characteristics, like crying, sadness and fear, is dehumanizing. Only acknowledging men above a certain strength limits as human men resulting in ridiculius strength assumptions is dehumanizing. Men are human and being required to be anything else is not a privilege. Men are forced to pretend to be something they are not in order to avoid the sanctions on nonconformity with inhumane ideals in men.

Oh, by the way. You remember the female youtuber who slapped, spit at and shouted into her dogs ear? The dog could have ripped her in half in a second, but decided not to. People were outraged. Last time I checked there were countless videos of people mocking and laughing at the same with men, all the way up to serious torture, with people being set on fucking fire and having their genitals cut off.

Obviously, not all of this will be applicable to everyone and there are exceptions, but everyone should be able to get why the statement in the screenshot is so problematic.

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

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