TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

[Australia] "There's no such thing as systemic misandry"

TheSpaceDuck
September 12, 2021
321 upvotes
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
post image

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 This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates.

/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates archive

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 [Australia] "There's no such thing as systemic misandry"
Author TheSpaceDuck
Upvotes 321
Comments 76
Date September 12, 2021 12:23 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/australia-theres-no-such-thing-as-systemic.1069120
https://theredarchive.com/post/1069120
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/pmrqjd/australia_theres_no_such_thing_as_systemic/
Red Pill terms in post
misandry
Top posts by TheSpaceDuck

BBC shows 80% homicide victims are male. Tries to spin it around by giving it the title "Women are much more likely to be killed by someone close to them"

2394 upvotes
December 27, 2018
/r/MensRights

Former stay at home dad and son dead, possibly poisoned. Mother had kidnapped kids and disappeared, father had to give 100% of his earnings as alimony. Polish feminist website made an article victim-blaming him with the title "even when a father murders his 4 year old son, women are guilty".

2145 upvotes
December 1, 2018
/r/MensRights

Swiss Man Identifies as a Woman to Retire Early

1198 upvotes
February 14, 2022
/r/MensRights

In Portugal the quality of the Covid vaccine you get depends on your gender.

1117 upvotes
July 12, 2021
/r/MensRights

Portugal: The consequences of deliberately giving men less efficient vaccines.

1003 upvotes
November 5, 2021
/r/MensRights

The Guardian blames men for Ghislane Maxwell's sex trafficking and tries to excuse her actions

986 upvotes
January 1, 2022
/r/MensRights

Bihar woman found living with lover while husband served jail for her ‘murder’ - Another instance of guilty until proven innocent for men accused of attacking women. This was posted in r/nottheonion and deleted by moderation.

868 upvotes
May 8, 2022
/r/MensRights

Feminist argues that extreme poverty and homelessness are female issues. Gets schooled.

726 upvotes
February 4, 2019
/r/MensRights
Comments

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] 92 points93 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Pretty much self-explainatory. An official government plan in Australia aims to "target masculinity" as a means to increase safety. The sad part is that just today I read an article showing the consequences of this mentality during the post 9/11.

Instead of learning, our governments just decided to target their hate speech at a different group.

[–]DIES-_-IRAE 84 points85 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Mask off moment.

At least they're starting to be openly honest about being anti Male...

[–]peanutbutterjams 0 points1 point  (3 children) | Copy Link

Who is "they"?

[–]DIES-_-IRAE 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

4th Wave Feminists.

[–]Largedragon666 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I can smell cancer cooking in aunt feminists kitchen 🤮

[–]name2electricbogalo 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Only one person working in the goverment apparently

[–]patcomen 37 points38 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

From the newspaper The Australian on March 15, 2021, quoting Tame:

Sexual assault survivor and advocate Grace Tame has told protesters at Hobart’s March 4 Justice rally that evil thrives in silence and it’s time for “making noise”.

The Hobart resident, who was 15 when she was raped by her 58-year-old teacher, told the throngs gathered that the fear of doing nothing must outweigh the fear of doing something.

“Evil thrives in silence,” Ms Tame told the crowd during a speech that roused thunderous applause and cheers.

“Behaviour unspoken behaviour ignored is behaviour endorsed.

“The start of the solution is quite simple – making noise.”

Ms Tame said the pursuit of progress did not need to be adversarial.

“Men are not the enemy, corrupt behaviour is,” she said.

“Corrupt behaviour always has been and always will be the enemy.”

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 22 points23 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

That's a much better message than the newspaper headline.

[–]CanniBal1320 17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

When a 15 y/o girl who prolly has every reason to hate males is more smarter than elected officials of the government

[–]Anonymous2401 37 points38 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Between this and the police surveillance laws, I feel like I'll be moving to New Zealand in a few years. This country is circling the drain.

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

New Zealand is just as bad

[–]Simpson5774 15 points16 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

What makes you believe NZ is any better? asking as an American who from the outside it looks like those two countries are in competition with eachother to see who can oppress its people harder right now.

[–]Anonymous2401 16 points17 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Aside from general quality of life (lower bills, better weather, marginally better leadership, etc) Australia is going to shit quickly. The recent development that's been a major point (and the cause of tons of Americans describing Aus as "literally 1984") is a new law that, if passed, will allow police to seize control of and modify online accounts and devices before they get a warrant. Police could remotely access your computer, modify your files, then log into your accounts and post whatever they want legally. Combine that with a corrupt government that has a history of harassing their critics, and I wouldn't be surprised if this country goes very downhill very quickly in the next few years.

Honestly, there's too many problems to mention. Take me to the land of Kiwis and L&P.

[–]MSstudioHD 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Can you give proof about that?

[–]Anonymous2401 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Here's a great video explaining it in layman's terms.

[–]MSstudioHD 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I suggest you to add full-disk encryption to your system, so without your password, they basically can't access the files.

Anyway that's quite worrying!

[–]ARX7 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Most of the powers already existed and this just clarifies them in a digital context. The powers do require warrants.

That said a better question would be why the libs keep putting people with no legal background into the AAT given they're able to sign off on the above warrants

[–]NorthHelicopter- 51 points52 points  (9 children) | Copy Link

first to silence masculinity, first to call upon masculinity for help.

That must be their slogan.

[–]Robble93 37 points38 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

And making TikTok videos of themselves complaining about how difficult it is to find a "real man" these days.

[–]NorthHelicopter- 23 points24 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The lack of hindsight is really cringe.

[–]peanutbutterjams 3 points4 points  (6 children) | Copy Link

Who is "they"?

[–]iainmf 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If you want an example of a specific person, Michael Flood.

He is involved with this and appears in some of the videos on the page.

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

Thank you

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

the ones trying to demonize masculinity

[–]peanutbutterjams 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

It's good to be specific, especially when no subject has yet to to be introduced, because the "they" could be too easily read as "women" in your statement.

This sub has a rule against demonizing women so it would be appreciated if you could be more clear next time.

[–]NorthHelicopter- 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Aight

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

shit, with another 'l' and 'r' - plus two more 'alright's from me - and we could have summoned the 1993 version of Matthew McConaughey, who would have completely accepted the situation with a clichéd (but not to him):

[–]SamaelET 55 points56 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

They will target boys. They will make men subservient to women and feminism, even more than today. If you havr sons protect them.

[–]venom9110 3 points4 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

And then the plan will be complete and Australia, just like the west, will be ripe for China to take over financially or even physically if they wanted: https://fb.watch/7_2ra6EZXX/

[–]KissMyAsthma-99 0 points1 point  (1 child) | Copy Link

Not physically, at least not over the US. Still far too many blades of grass. Give it... 50 years though.

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

Nah. The windows of invasion is closing for China. They also have an issue with aging population and would have to invite the West within 20 years.

[–]peanutbutterjams 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Who is "they"?

[–]SamaelET 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Those who are behind that anti male plan. The feminist politicians and academics who built and pushed for this plan and the feminist activivists who will receive funding to brain wash boys.

[–]PsychoPhilosopher 18 points19 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Manufactured outrage. This is the Murdoch press manipulating you.

There's no targeting of Men or Masculinity here, just a propaganda hit piece.

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

I saw a different version of this story that quoted a communique from the Women's Summit. The quote said that they wanted "dominant forms of masculinity" targetted. I doubt it's fiction - that Summit was extremist & will have a big impact on the next National Plan.

[–]SpadfaTurds 3 points4 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Exactly! It’s a Courier Mail article

[–]Nath43673 20 points21 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I agree that this is clearly an incendiary headline.

But I'm not going to sugarcoat that Australia has a poor track record as far as the "conversation" around masculinity goes, as well as actually doing anything to reduce family violence.

Let's not forget that this summit is part of a larger initiative whose title is National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children (emphasis mine). That tells you something about how men are seen in this whole issue: you're either an abuser or you're a protector, but you're always going to be on the outside because children belong to women.

I do have time for Grace Tame though. I was impressed how she used gender neutral language in a news interview I heard a few months back, when discussing sexual abuse and harassment. I'm not sure if her approach has changed since then, but she gave me hope that a younger spokesperson on the issues might have more objectivity and a less ideological approach.

[–]problem_redditorright-wing guest 16 points17 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

But I'm not going to sugarcoat that Australia has a poor track record as far as the "conversation" around masculinity goes, as well as actually doing anything to reduce family violence.

Yeah Australia has an awful track record on this. Take it from someone who lives there, these ads were plastered all over Australia a while back.

They pretty explicitly painted men and even boys' behaviour as "the problem" - evil oppressors who need to be reined in and taught to not be abusers, and who we're not hard enough on.

https://asset-cdn.campaignbrief.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/04193058/DSS0004_Domestic_Violence_380x262mm_MAGAZINE_280-1.jpg

https://www.bmf.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/DSS_OOH_1.jpg

https://www.bmf.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/DSS_OOH_2.jpg

They have a photo of a little boy at the bottom of many of the ads. A little boy. Who presumably needs to be taught to not be an abuser.

And Australia is just in general very gynocentric. I read some time ago that Australia in their recent budget spent a lot on initiatives that go towards benefiting women.

https://www.afr.com/policy/economy/childcare-subsidies-make-up-half-of-new-spending-for-women-20210510-p57qjk

"The government will spend $3.4 billion to promote women’s health, safety and economic security, with half of this to be absorbed by well-flagged childcare subsidies."

The childcare subsidies I suppose will go towards families, which I suppose goes towards benefiting men too (well, aside from single-parent families which are predominantly single mothers largely because of pro-women bias in family court), but the other half pretty much goes towards women-only everything.

"Noting that the gender pay gap remained significant, the government announced a $1.9 billion package to improve women’s economic security. The sum takes in $1.7 billion over five years for increased childcare subsidies, as well as $25.7 million to help more women pursue careers in science, engineering and maths."

"The package also includes $38.3 million to fund projects that assist women into leadership roles."

"Another $1.1 billion will go towards reducing and supporting the victims of domestic and sexual violence. This will also be spent largely over four years and includes $164.8 million for a two-year trial program to provide financial support to women fleeing a violent relationship, $129 million to give women better access to legal services and $261.4 million, over two years, to establish a national partnership with the states and territories to expand the funding of frontline domestic and sexual violence support services."

"The government also earmarked $352 million for women’s health services. This includes funding to improve maternal, sexual and reproductive health, including for endometriosis, and $13.7 million over three years to fund initiatives to educate healthcare providers and families on the risks of pre-term birth."

And more.

Australia is using tax money, likely mostly paid by men, and channeling it into a huge amount of programs that benefit pretty much only women. I'm unaware of any such equivalent amount of spending for men. While people might call this nitpicky it really does end up being a huge source of social injustice when taken as a whole.

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

And, of course, when it come to dealing with male victims of domestic violence, the policy is to ignore them as much as possible

[–]Nath43673 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah and Australia is just in general very gynocentric.

I'm not sure I'd use that language exactly, but yes, I think there's a combination of cultural dynamics in Australia that results in a biased approach to gender issues. It's really just traditional chivalry masked as "fighting for the underdog", and it spans the political spectrum.

[–]mushmushmoomoo -3 points-2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yyyyyp

[–]mushmushmoomoo -1 points0 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Murdoch does this to bring back the boomer days. 9ne where he can manipulate and make money

[–]Fast-Mongoose-4989 19 points20 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Wow this is going to back fire horrible like.

[–]BellEnd1980 17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yes. Continue to alienate and ostracize an entire generation of young fighting age men. I see no way how that can backfire.

[–]atactic87 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Found a phone readable version. https://www.pressreader.com/article/281651078227110

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

This is what happens when you try to understand men through women's experiences.

Here the UN explains the gender was developed to understand women's oppression. They see gender as oppression. So masculinity (they see as the dominant gender) is the cause of women's oppression.

The concept of gender first appeared in feminist writings in the 1970s to challenge the then dominant position of biological determinism, which had naturalised women’s inequality as arising from the biological difference between women and men. Feminist theorists developed the concept to point to the social construction of gender inequality and the relational aspect of the meaning of femininity and masculinity. By emphasising the social construction of women’s inequality, feminist theorists and activists from around the world called for political action to change this.

There were different feminist understandings of the term, but the dominant approach defined gender as referring to social norms, roles and expectations for women and men, as distinct from sex, which referred to the biological difference between them. While women of different social identities and socio-economic backgrounds were part of the feminist movement since its beginning,64 it was in the 1990s that the intersectionality perspective, which calls for an intersectional analysis of multiple interlocking dimensions of oppression, such as sex, gender, class, race, sexuality, ethnicity and disability, established itself fully as an important tool of analysis of discrimination. The coining of the term intersectionality helped clarify that women’s social identities profoundly influence how each woman experiences gender. In addition, in the 1990s queer theory also started using the term gender, challenging (what it perceived as) the binary understanding of gender, sex/gender dichotomy, and the heteronormative assumptions of some feminist approaches.86

https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Women/WG/Gender-equality-and-gender-backlash.pdf

Basically they believe that women are oppressed because men and women are socialised differently. Men's socialisation is call masculinity. To eliminate women's oppression, gender needs to be eliminated. This is done by making men's and women's socialisation the same.

[–]gratis_eekhoorn 10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Thanks for posting this OP, do you happen to have a higher resolution version of this image?

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

Unfortunately no.

[–]CourageousGoblin 7 points8 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Some of the comments in this post feel way too close to r/MensRights for comfort

[–]ColonialDagger 7 points8 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It's probably because it was cross-posted in /r/MensRights without using a non-participation link.

[–]2717192619192left-wing male advocate 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

We have always been pretty close to MensRights, since the inception of the subreddit.

[–]peanutbutterjams 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Agreed. There's a current of demonization here.

Nothing explicit, mods. I've just been thinking this very thing while scrolling down this thread.

Not a fan about the lack of a source, either.

[Edit: Found it, I think. It's the "they"s.

There's a lot of claims that "they" are anti-male, "they" are happy to make men and boys subservient and "they" will call upon masculinity when they need help.

It sounds like it's demonizing women but they could be talking about feminists.

Be specific, guys. It's important.]

[–]TheLWMA 2 points3 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

I agree. The comments on this post specifically are very out of character for this sub.

[–]2717192619192left-wing male advocate[M] 5 points6 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

What exactly seems troubling or problematic? Let us know and we’ll take a look

[–]TheLWMA 4 points5 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I don't know. There's just something about some of these comments that seem... off. I can't properly explain it. They don't break the rules or anything, it's just a feeling.

We have always been pretty close to MensRights, since the inception of the subreddit.

Well true, but this sub can discuss sexism in a nuanced fashion. MensRights is too vitriolic IMO.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 3 points4 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Maybe it's because this is more of a rage bait piece then we usually allow.

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

That may be the case.

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

I have a feeling that Joseph Goebbles would be impressed by such a title if only it were tweaked a tad.

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

Whenever there is a disaster, who rushes in to help make sure people are safe and rescued? The masculine people.

Whenever there is armed conflict that has to be settled, which people go to help sort it and restore peace to the world? The masculine ones.

When your family is scared of spiders/the monster under the bed/the noise downstairs, which member of the household do they look for? The masculine one.

If you want a safe world, the very last thing you do is get rid of masculinity. Masculinity saves lives.

[–]MydnightRose 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

If men agreed to stop doing all this. Then these feminist would realize how "bad" masculinity is. Next time the continent is on fire, don't lift a finger. Tell the woman to do it.

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

That would, perhaps, help to raise the issue of just how much we all rely on masculine men.

One of the 'problems' with such a policy is that it flies in the face of human nature. Men WANT to protect their woman and children, they have a deep-seated NEED to be of use and to be the protector.

And also, while many women will (naturally) take advantage of the social advantages she is handed, most women don't actually identify as feminist. Is it fair to punish them (as well as all the men and children) just to make the point that we are a necessary part of society?

I wish there was an easy answer..

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

This is what I've come to expect, unfortunately.

[–]peanutbutterjams 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Do you have a link? I'm having trouble finding a source.

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Someone already posted it but in case you've missed it: https://www.pressreader.com/article/281651078227110

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

I just found it actually but I appreciate it.

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

I find all of this hilarious considering that Australia used to be a prison colony

[–]dungeonmonkey69 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

She has the dead eyes of a power hungry sociopath

[–]WingsofSky -3 points-2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

So they're going to start to remove men's "Balls" figuratively and literally?

What a bad country to live in. lol

[–][deleted]  (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Russelsteapot42 23 points24 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

As feminism taught us, language doesn't matter and has no effect whatsoever on people's biases. /s

[–]Kuato2012left-wing male advocate[M] 8 points9 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Removed for rule 8.

[–]sakura_drop 17 points18 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This is in Australia. Trust me, an issue like this doesn't have that nuance there.

And you may want to curb the "incels" nonsense.

[–]TheSpaceDuck[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Your comment makes no sense in this context.

That's like saying "Islam target of national safety plan" and then claiming it was only talking about radical Islam and that "only a bunch of jihadists who don't understand the nuance" will get worked up.

[–]Scrubadubdub8 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Step 5 and 6.

Many many exit points left, but it keeps creeping

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

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