~ archived since 2018 ~

Feminists talking about 'male violence' sound like Republicans talking about 'inner city violence'

May 17, 2022
167 upvotes

Examples include:

If they really wanted it to stop, they'd just stop doing it

or

They can't seem to help themselves

and the clincher

The prevalence of their violence shows their true nature.

It makes sense that they'd sound so similar because both feminism and racist conservatives are swimming in the waters of biological essentialism - a belief that a person's biological traits such as race or sex is what determines what kind of person they are, or even what kind of person they are even capable of being.


If you doubt the last, here's EJ Dickson, a writer for Rolling Stone, on the character of her own son:

there is strong evidence that our society is so steeped in toxic masculinity, so drenched in the primordial ooze of white male supremacy, that it doesn't matter how many dolls you buy your kid or how many times he reads A Is For Activist.

A white man born to uber-woke, uber feminist parents is still a white man, and he will enjoy the privileges afforded to white men. And with this privilege comes the inherently limited ability to empathize or identify with the lived experiences of women, LGBT people, and people of color.

Or this model in Vogue talking about the depression she fell into upon learning she'd be bearing 'yet another white male' into the world


Feminists see men as a problem to be solved, not understood. Which is exactly how racist Republicans look at black people.

When the left wing (or, you know: science) looks at "inner city crime", it looks at a history of racism, the capitalist reality that poverty will beget poverty for generations, the social and psychological effects of legal and financial oppression and come to an understanding.

There is no room to say "Black communities are more violent because black people are more violent" because it's axiomatic that biological essentialism has no place in a democratic and/or scientific society.

Entire identity groups aren't inherently bad because of their biology. Any suggestion of such would be bigotry by any definition.

Nobody says this because nobody has to. It's well-understood.

 

And yet. And yet...

 

When it comes to men, suddenly there's no need to understand WHY male violence occurs. It's like everybody already assumes the reason: male violence happens because men are men.

There's no talk about sexual dimorphism forcing men into the role of 'meat shield' for our entire physical and social evolution.

There's no mention of the fact that every person alive today is only here because one of their ancestors was a better killer than some other poor schmuck.

There's no talk about the inter-generational trauma caused by wars at least once every generation or even the day-to-day violence from which women were mostly protected.

Men have caught the brunt of almost all this societal violence since men began. How is it possible that a society so concerned about mental health cannot see the accumulated toll this violence would take over the course of 300,000 years?

Nobody says anything about modern society's abusive relationship with men either.

There's still the physical abuse - the dying, the mangling, the maiming, all to make profit for the rich - but now there's also the verbal and mental abuse via social media that men face on a daily basis.

Another psychic load for men to carry in a society where they are far more likely to be isolated than women, less educated than women, less cared about than women.

All of these are relevant factors behind 'male violence' but they are never discussed because it would require for feminists and society to look upon men with empathy and consideration.

And nobody talks about men with empathy and consideration not just due to hate but also because too many powerful people and organizations need men to play the role of oppressor, never victim. Anything else kicks the foundation of their power out from under them.

So it's not just hate that men are up against, but power too.


Because of the recent shooting, you are going to hear a lot of ironically-weaponized talk about 'male violence' over the course of the next week or two.

When you do, remember that you're hearing the voice of biological essentialism, that which has sat on the shoulder of every bigot in history and whispered sweet reductionisms into their ear.

You are hearing incomplete facts and the result of unconsidered perspectives.

You are hearing a naked lack of empathy for half the people in the world.

You are hearing bigotry, and you don't deserve it.

 

Love and strength, everyone.

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 Feminists talking about 'male violence' sound like Republicans talking about 'inner city violence'
Author peanutbutterjams
Upvotes 167
Comments 43
Date May 17, 2022 11:56 PM UTC (8 months ago)
Subreddit /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/feminists-talking-about-male-violence-sound-like.1119555
https://theredarchive.com/post/1119555
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/urzw4d/feminists_talking_about_male_violence_sound_like/
Red Pill terms in post
Comments

[–]ObserverBlueleft-wing male advocate 41 points42 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Am I the only one who constantly sees this regarding refugee crisis? Yesterday I read a post on r/worldnews about immigration and refugees (it was about Europe being accused of double standards), and this topic of male violence appeared. It was frustrating to see how quickly people resorted to misandry. Quite a few comments essentially implying how women (apart from children) are inherently more acceptable as refugees whereas young males are not, either because they can always be potentially violent or problematic, or because they should stay back to fight whatever conflict is causing the crisis, or that women genuinely need protection whereas men apparently kind of don't because they are not vulnerable, or things like that. And it's far from the first time I see this.

It also reminds me of a post I read on r/SubredditDrama, also about this immigration/refugee topic, and that time I was surprised because whereas many comments there were the typical woke garbage of that Subreddit, some comments actually pointed out the misandry that is often weaponized by different sides regarding this topic. It's something that not only comes from some leftist feminists, but also from right-wingers. In the case of this "inherent male violence" rhetoric, it seems to be particularly acceptable. Men being perpetual potential threats seems to completely override empathy in these cases.

Now, there's a lot that could be discussed about the genuine problems Europe has had with immigration/refugee crisis related to other countries with very different cultures, but I hate how framing it in a sexist way becomes acceptable and how quick people are to dehumanize men in the way they talk about this topic.

[–]peanutbutterjamsleft-wing male advocate[S] 26 points27 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Immigration policy is one area where men's lives are negatively changed because of this constant dehumanization.

Another is in access to foreign aid. Thanks to our 'feminist government', Canada has dedicated 95% of our foreign aid to be given to women only.

Sorry boy soldiers. Guess you should have worked on your toxic masculinity eh?

Actually the physical disposability of men plays into how easily it's been to cast them as evil and destructive (...while using technology in a democracy mostly built by men).

If men are disposable physically, then they are disposable when it comes to their feelings too. They can be used as a focal point for hate when feminists need a target (i.e., always) because people care less about men.

Like how some women think it's okay to hit men because they're big and strong and 'can take it'.

Janice knows any guy who sees her hateful post/tweet about men is going to be hurt but because men are disposable, not only does she not care about those men's feelings, that was the point.

The point was to hurt the men who saw what she wrote because they're strong, they can take it, they shouldn't be so fragile, and men kinda deserve it.

Janice was frustrated with her day, she can easily tie that frustration to a men if she wants given that, you know, there's billions of us. So she goes online and shits on men and feels better about herself. Even her guy friends aren't allowed to say anything about her verbally abusive comments towards all men lest they want to end the friendship.

Why? Because she has a free pass to do it.

If wine came out of our taps, a lot of us would become alcoholics. That's why people have, and need, boundaries.

It's time for men's rights advocates to talk about which boundary we should set first and concentrate our energy behind its construction before moving onto the next.

[–]ChimpPimp20 27 points28 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Feminists see men as a problem to be solved

Holy...

When it comes to men, suddenly there's no need to understand WHY male violence occurs. It's like everybody already assumes the reason: male violence happens because men are men.

In my city (Chicago), an all female task force is working on cutting the female inmate population in half. This is great but then you realize they're only doing it for the women. Still cool, just half baked.

[–]Deadlocked02 31 points32 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ChimpPimp20 27 points28 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ah yes, I call this the Dr. Phil technique.

Where both a male and a female can be guilty of a crime and the woman will be aided with mental help services and the male will be threatened with death and a foot welded inside his ass.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pP-MCg7O7MA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqaed5a7iaI

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

Reminder everyone - Don't brigade the crossposted sub. It's against Reddit rules.

To document instances of misandry, consider these options:

1) take screenshots and upload them to Imgur
2) archive the page using a site like https://archive.vn/
3) crosspost the link to a dedicated subreddit like /r/everydaymisandry

You can also report misandry directly to the admins here.

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

[–]otterdog891 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

What if male prisoners start transitioning?

[–]Ok_Break_1746 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I can understand that if you consider the reasons a lot of these women are in prison. For example, “crimes” like prostitution are hardly crimes.

[–]Aimless-Nomad 19 points20 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

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

This is why I actually think we're going to see a pushback against feminism over the next few years.

Women favour women over men, but they favour their family over other women. Blood is thicker than water, as they say. Mothers are going to start seeing how feminism is negatively affecting their sons and their husbands. Fathers who are otherwise indifferent to it are going to start seeing their sons fall behind in school. It's one thing to hold unfavourable views of all men when the men you know are all adults who can "take it", but when it's your own teenage son on the receiving end of all of society's hate? At that point you realise something has to change.

[–]Aimless-Nomad 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

With the epidemic of single mothers, i dont know if that'll happen. And most single moms are self proclaimed feminists so they'll solve their sons' problems with the power of feminist bs.

Or they won't even see any problem.

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

Ngl, it's kind of wild that that last one got life with no parole hearing for 37 years. If it were the father, sure, that or no parole or death; but I wouldn't have bet she'd get a day over 20 with parole possible after 10.

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

That one article with the mother fearing her sons becoming rapists… It contained a comical lack of self-awareness.

“My sons found an article where I painted them as monsters involved in a conspiracy to destroy 50% of the population. Also those evil YouTube videos have made them hate feminism. How could this happen?”

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

Reminder everyone - Don't brigade the crossposted sub. It's against Reddit rules.

To document instances of misandry, consider these options:

1) take screenshots and upload them to Imgur
2) archive the page using a site like https://archive.vn/
3) crosspost the link to a dedicated subreddit like /r/everydaymisandry

You can also report misandry directly to the admins here.

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

[–]Deadlocked02 36 points37 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

If you doubt the last, here's EJ Dickson, a writer for Rolling Stone, on the character of her own son:

there is strong evidence that our society is so steeped in toxic masculinity, so drenched in the primordial ooze of white male supremacy, that it doesn't matter how many dolls you buy your kid or how many times he reads A Is For Activist.

I have read my fair share of articles written by feminists showing concerns about their sons turning out wrong. It’s quite concerning that kids are growing up in this kind of environment. It’s already bad enough that these individuals are having relationships with men (and that there are men willing to subject themselves to this), but despite their distrust and dislike for men, they still decide to have sons.

One of the reasons feminism is so successful is their ability to dehumanize men so easily and not give a shit about it, even the ones in their family. And they have plenty of room for that, because most men seem numb to it. Not to mention the ones being actively socialized under an ideology that teaches that women lack the power and capacity to hurt them and that they should be understanding of their hatred.

[–]peanutbutterjamsleft-wing male advocate[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Boys being hurt by feminist hate is my concern as well but it's particularly horrible when it coming from their own mother.

I don't see any reason CPS shouldn't remove EJ Dickson's son from her care if this is how she talks about him publicly.

It's frightening to think about how many homes are like this. I can't dwell on it too much or I start to feel hopeless.

[–]Oncefa2left-wing male advocate 24 points25 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There are multiple cases of feminist mothers subjecting their sons to actual child abuse. A couple of cases involved gendercide: they didn't want their son growing up to be in the patriarchy and rape women. So they kill them.

[–]rammo123 9 points10 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

I wonder if we're going to see an epidemic of mental illness in the coming years as the children of the ultrawoke start to come of age. It was bad enough growing up in time where society blasted a continuous message of "men bad", but at least that was never coming from my parents. I can't begin to imagine the damage these feminists are doing to their sons' psyches.

Will they be beaten into submission, or will they violently rebel and become the new generation of incel extremists? You can only tell a child that he's a devil because of his chromosomes so many time before he starts to believe it.

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

The epidemic of mental illness you referred to is already underway, I'd say. Though I'm pretty sure it will get far worse.

[–]shn29 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Interestingly enough. The first incel was a woman. Guess it's a cycle. Women that despise men raise sons that will despise women which will raise daughters that despise men etc...

[–]wholelottaboocrap 8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I keep seeing the far left and the far right use the exact same logic to reach different, equally insane conclusions. Talk to a Christian fundamentalist about how the world can't be 6,000 years old, because we can carbon date fossils back tens of millions of years. It's entirely irrefutable in every way. What they'll say is something absurd like "the Devil put dinosaurs here."

Try to compare the logical parallel between victim blaming men vs. women, or men vs. other men who also happen to be black. Suddenly, the argument becomes you, the brittle white man, is trying to compare his existence today to the plight of a race that was enslaved. When someone claims "you can't say that," they're either attacking the principle, or they're attacking the situation. If they attack the situation, then they're revealing that there exists a set of circumstances that make it OK to be blindly hateful to a large group of people. You can't say that about black people because it's punching down. That carries an uncomfortable implication that black people are somehow below us, or less capable, therefore off limits.

The difference is society laughs at and disregards "the Devil put dinosaurs here," and "well, that's just internalized misogyny" is held as law that will ruin your career and life if you speak out against it.

[–]peanutbutterjamsleft-wing male advocate[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

"the Devil put dinosaurs here," and

"well, that's just internalized misogyny"

Exactly. Both are expressions of faith.

Any reference to 'patriarchy' is faith-based.

And it's all bad-faith faith, too. Feminists will look at something 'men do', come to the worst possible conclusions, and then act as if it's gospel - even to the extent of attacking people who don't agree with their un-proven, un-evidenced, irrational and hurtful conclusions.

[–]reverbiscrap 8 points9 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I suppose it wouldn't surprise you to know that feminists have already aligned with white supremacists in the past when they could gain something from them.

[–]Dry-Pianist1853 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

*feminists were white supremacists.

[–]Sinistaire 7 points8 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

A useful exercise I've been doing is to take feminist attitudes towards men and cross-reference them with whice supremacist attitudes towards black people, and the result is pretty damning. There's so much intersection between black issues and men's issues that it's straight up scandalous that feminists refuse to acknowledge it.

Everything black men deal with, all men get some, and everything men deal with, black men get worse.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 2 points3 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Sounds like you would enjoy /r/menkampf

[–]34T_y3r_v3ggi3s[🍰] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Ohhh that sub was un banned?! Nice!

[–]vaaralinen 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

"If they really wanted it to stop, they'd just stop doing it" I wonder what if someone said, "if women wanted to stop rape, they'd just stop doing that" lmao.

And they dare, again, claim they're pro-LGBT, and we're against. As an LGBT man I don't want the fake "empathy" (sociopaths don't have it), all I want is for them to leave us alone and out of their propaganda, and stop stealing the LGBT movement when they are clearly against gay, bisexual and transgender men, and even lesbians who fail to conform to them. No Karen it is YOU who can not empathize with LGBT people, or anyone, and your "help" is as good as conservative therapy heals people. Same with men of colour I guess. If you have a problem with men, you're also racist, homophobic, biphobic and transphobic, because you either hate black, gay, bi and trans men, or they're not even "real men" to you. Guess it's the latter if "men can't empathize with LGBT people" so there must be no men in LGBT huh. I digress but it's such an enraging claim

And they're not only similar to racists, their ideologists were actually racist at the roots:

Elizabeth Cady Stanton, “What will we and our daughters suffer if these degraded black men are allowed to have the rights that would make them even worse than our Saxon fathers?”

Mississippi state senator Belle Kearney, “The enfranchisement of women would insure immediate and durable white supremacy.” 

Frances Willard, founder of the National Council of Women, compared black people to locusts.

Rebecca Ann Latimer Felton, first woman to serve in the Senate, called black men “ravening beasts” and responded to the possibility of black suffrage predating women’s by advocating lynching. 

etc. (yes I copypasted the quotes)

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

Exactly what I referred to.

When I tell my cousins that feminism was created by and for wealthy white women, they give me the side eye

[–]rammo123 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

When you can make a sub like /r/menkampf and have it be as active as it is, you know feminism has a toxicity problem.

[–]Dry-Pianist1853 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Its almost like feminists want men to be destitute so some will become destructive so they'll always have a boogeyman to cry about

[–]peanutbutterjamsleft-wing male advocate[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There is defintely a self-fulfilling prophecy aspect to feminism. They work to alienate men, to verbally abuse men, to diminish men, and then when the very, very, very small amount of men react violently, they can paint all men with that violence.

Men are both feminism's villain and its currency.

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

There's no mention of the fact that every person alive today is only here because one of their ancestors was a better killer than some other poor schmuck.

Not only that, but everyone is also alive today because one of their female ancestors found that killer incredibly attractive, instead of being horrified by him.

Its not just men that need to be understood and have our evolutionary roots examined, but women as well. Because the truth is that women have been equally responsible throughout history in shaping norms through their mate selection.

Of course, just like with men, that doesn't mean modern women have to be the same way. Women deserve the same level of understanding. I'm just showing how one could use the same biological essentialism to blame women for their current state of affairs rather than men.

Of course, talking about sexual selection basically amounts to social suicide. Hows that for a double standard? Apparently men are responsible for being violent killers but women aren't responsible for perpetuating violent killers by allowing them to reproduce.

[–]peanutbutterjamsleft-wing male advocate[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

There's a small minority of women attracted to violent criminals.

I wonder what the percentage of female hybristophiliacs is and how it compares to male serial killers or first-degree murderers.

It is true that rich men give more orgasms and there's definitely a link between CEOs and sociopathy.

[–]Acceptable-Success56 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Thank you for this perspective and drawing this parallel. Thought provoking and presented well.

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

You make a good point about the genuinely powerful (oligarchs, politicians) needing somebody (or somebodies) to be slotted into the role of a villainous other that isn't them.

Seems that various racial minorities and immigrants did the job for quite some time in the states. More recently we've been switching over to scapegoating white people and men. Right wing elements are trying to switch things back, but very few people these days seem prepared to move beyond these scapegoating schemes altogether.

[–]BootyliciousURD -2 points-1 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

There's no talk about sexual dimorphism forcing men into the role of 'meat shield' for our entire physical and social evolution. There's no mention of the fact that every person alive today is only here because one of their ancestors was a better killer than some other poor schmuck.

That sounds an awful lot like biological essentialism…

[–]peanutbutterjamsleft-wing male advocate[S] 15 points16 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

How so?

What I'm talking about there is how societies have reacted to the fact that men are bigger and stronger, not saying that men are attracted to those roles 'because they're men'.

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

And even if you were resorting to biological essentialism by implying that men are biologically attracted to those roles, that would only go to show how the article can't even bother to look at both sides of the argument through its narrow minded ideology. Fighting fire with fire, so to speak

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

I think it's more about the gender role of a provider/protecter expected of men

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

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