~ archived since 2018 ~

Compilation of evidence that the "men are predators" view and its resulting legal and social consequences are due to feminist rhetoric rather than "patriarchal views".

March 17, 2021

It probably happened to most of us that whenever we confront feminists (and not only) with issues such as male victims of rape not being recognized by the law, airlines discriminating against men, male victims of domestic violence being over 40% of domestic violence victims and having less than 1% of resources and being more likely to be arrested than their aggressors, etc. the immediate reply we get is:

"But these are due to patriarchal notions that men are strong and women weak and men cannot be abused. Feminists fight against that".

In the wake of the most recent wave of "men are aggressors" propaganda I decided to make a collection of evidence that there is a general "men are predators, women are victims" idea being pushed and that the origin is feminist rhetoric rather than traditional masculinity. Here's a short list I gathered so far: - UK Green party calls for a curfew for men because they're a threat to women. - "Against Our Will" by Susan Brownmiller, one of the most important books in feminist literature, defines rape as "a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" - A recent Brazilian report on rape victims uses Susan Brownmiller's quote to define rape. Page 7 of the report, 9 of the PDF (document in Portuguese) - Origin of the skitltes analogy Donald Trump Jr. used to descrie refugees. It was originally about men. - Feminists compare men to ticks as a way to explain why women think men are potential threats. - Feminist outlet Vox shows its opinion on the rebuke that not all men are aggressors. - Popular youtuber Rachel Oates makes a video justifying the idea that men make women feel unsafe and should actively try not to. She also defends the Skittles analogy and the one comparing men to ticks. - Australian domestic violence helpline provides services for women if they're victims of violence and for men if they are violent themselves. - Another misandrist rebuke to the idea that men aren't a threat. - Yet another one. - And yet another one. - Feminist MP in Sweden claims "we don't know which men are rapists so we have to assume all men are" as well as "all men have to take collective responsibility" - Video in Swedish, captions available in English.*U1lc2XQySfL27fb5 - Billboards in UK saying "all men are dangerous" - Same as above - Feminist post on men's day claims that "if there were no men women could live safe and without fear".

I would encourage others to add to this list if you have some examples of your own. Would be even better if someone with website design knowledge found a place where all of these could be consulted in a single source.

Some could argue that "who's responsible" is the least of men's problems in this regard, and in a way there's a point to that. However it's also true that many of the issues I mentioned will never be solved (and will only get worse) as long as this sort of speech is widespread, so to have any reasonable hopes of tackling them and providing a better future for male victims of violence the first step is awareness towards the consequences of this sort of speech.

EDIT: Fixed source on last link.

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:

Post Information
Title Compilation of evidence that the "men are predators" view and its resulting legal and social consequences are due to feminist rhetoric rather than "patriarchal views".
Author TheSpaceDuck
Upvotes 104
Comments 10
Date March 17, 2021 1:22 AM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Archive Link
Original Link
Red Pill terms in post

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 29 points30 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

Feminism itself is a powerful, institutionalized force in society.

So at what point is feminism part of the power structure that we call the patriarchy?

I won't say that men's issues are 100% caused by feminism, but feminism isn't exactly innocent, either.

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

Oh, feminism is patriarchal. This is part of the reason I say it needs extreme reform, to the point where its reformed version will basically be unrecognisable.

It relies on patriarchy in a number of ways.

Demonising men is one of them - they claim that they think men are better or capable of better than the patriarchy does, but the M&Ms shit is literal Nazi logic, they used the same analogy in propaganda about Jewish people. Consequences likely won't be the same for us at all, but can hardly be argued this isn't problematic.

They also rely highly on patriarchal notions of agency - men are active, they act, they make things happen, whereas women are passive, things are done to them. This is where the demands for men to fix women's problems come from, but when men talk about their problems - there might be some noise about society failing men, but men are still largely expected to solve their own problems. We're still seen as active agents, women as passive agents - when convenient.

I don't think it's insignificant that a movement that claims to oppose patriarchy, which has operated for the best part of two centuries if not longer, is still utterly reliant on it in quite ingrained ways. That's not a fuckup, that's a failure in its core purpose.

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

Reminded me of this.

[–]OirishM 9 points10 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The m&ms analogy has been used to hurt other demographics before, and this is worth making them very well aware of.

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

Where did the skittles meme originate? The feminist version

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

Two things:

  1. The "all men are dangerous poster" I hadn't seen before. I can say now that it has served as smthe straw that broke the camels back and has had me decide to count myself out from society. There really is not point in engaging

  2. You make a mistake in the last link. TheTinMen blog is not a feminist blog. Its a mens advocacy blog. The very best in my opinion. What makes them great is that they are not anti women or anti feminist but purely egalitarian. In being so they can see all issues regardless of gender and thus can take time to appreciate women and their struggles with an overall tone of conciliation.

  3. Genuinely, from the bottomest bottom of my heart, fuxk society.

P.s. arguing against the idea of "not all anything/one" is pretty stupid because the same logic can be applied to any bad actors in any group.

Not all white people are racist but some are so we should assume they all are? Not all poor people are thieves but some are so we assume they all are Not all women will falsely accuse you of rape if you turn them down but some will so they all will? Not all women will emotionally abuse you in a relationship but some will so we assume they all do?

I mean, on the very face of it, its a silly position to take. Defining men by the tiny minority psychopaths umong us is at the very very very best judging of it, very unfair to men as a whole. Can you imagine judging any other groups by the very very worst of their number who make up less than a percentage point of the whole?

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

I've fixed point number 2. I got the source from a post that compared the TinMen post on women's day to a feminist post on men's day and linked the former instead of the latter. It's corrected now.

Defining men by the tiny minority psychopaths umong us is at the very very very best judging of it, very unfair to men as a whole.

Honestly it says a lot more about the person doing it than anything else. If a black person kills a white person and someone uses it to prove their point on black people (that or statistics) it says more about them than it does about black people.

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

Wait, am I missing something cuz the last link goes to something completely different than what you said (it’s linked for a TinMen post, not a feminist post maybe there was a link mistake)

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

Thanks for pointing it out. I've fixed it.

[–]quietlurk10 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What’s so strange is that 30 years after it passed every single vaguely left of center person agrees the crime bill was bad, hell even the current president who voted for it says it was bad policy. That it created offenders out of normal people, overpoliced communities, terrorized people, and destroyed lives when in fact crime had never been lower. It was propped up by moral panic, fueled by sensationalist fiction, poor reporting, prejudice and very bad data. We’re seeing the same thing happen again, and even if there isn’t some strange anti-male legislation, the public rage and witch hunts continue.

In 30 years you’re going to see the same thing. People are going to look at movies like promising young woman the same way people are starting to look at Deathwish and all the other vigilante movies. People going “wow we really got caught up in something, there was no data to support it, we ruined a lot of people’s lives, but golly gee we didn’t know any better.” And for a lot of us it’ll already be too late. Our lives, youths drained from us. And just like how joe Biden, hilary Clinton, and all those people who got behind the crime bill coasted to even more power and got to make “mistakes”, the assholes doing this will too.

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

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