~ archived since 2018 ~

"Of all journalists killed in 2021, 11% were women."

November 4, 2022

Stumbled onto this tweet when it was shared on another account I came to. This was from a recent tweet by that absolute joke of an organization UN Women. So never mind that 89% of journalists who die are men and that men still make up for the majority of homicides (and many are also killed by women), it's apparently only the women who are worth standing up for. How this organization gets funding and is legit is beyond me. How about standing up for both male AND female journalists? Journalists and especially those who go on dangerous assignments in places like war zones and such are all vulnerable but as usual, it's only the female victims who matter and with the male victims, it's "Eh, whatever." This organization is blatantly bigoted against men and boys. More of the usual "women most affected" nonsense. I hate this one or the other way of thinking.

UN Women is a complete embarrassment of an organization, and I feel embarrassed for women in general when an organization like this claims to represent them. "Stop targeting women journalists?" How about stop targeting ALL journalists? This should count as both inactivism and blatant gender discrimination against men.

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 This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates.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

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 102 points103 points  (13 children) | Copy Link

Did they even consider that this could weirdly be a sign of progress? This could be due to more women working in journalism, and more women getting dangerous assignments, just like men.

And did they even do any research on whether these women were targeted for their gender? Because to me it is not obvious that this is a gender issue.

It would be way better (and avoid a head-in-ass PR disaster) to simply call for not targetting journalists in general.

[–]frackingfaxerleft-wing male advocate 61 points62 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Around 75% of war correspondents are men. If that was 50/50, i.e. gender parity, there is no way female journalists would be only 11%. Paradoxically, it would be both less sexist and more sexist somehow.

Unless, of course, their idea of gender equality is a 50/50 split in war correspondents, but a 100/0 male-female death ratio.

[–]th3empirial 27 points28 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

It is

[–]HiderBehinderleft-wing male advocate 36 points37 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

Woman journalist death count rose from 6 to 8. Normally, if it was just that change, the percentage would be 9%, however, less men died as well making it 11%. Half of their argument is that less men died.

[–]Russelsteapot42 10 points11 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

9 less men in total.

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

Numbers are too small to make conclusion anyway. We can't deduce that "women journalist are getting more targeted" with one year datas so small. It could be entirely circumstancial.

[–]TisIChenoir 5 points6 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Wait wait wait. That would mean that even if less women journalists were killed, if the number of male journalists dropped too, making the percentage of women killed higher, they'd probably still be bitching?

[–]HiderBehinderleft-wing male advocate 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link


[–]Zaronaxleft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Deleted my other comment, just saw yours and those are the numbers I saw.

[–]Maldevinine 13 points14 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, there's a whole lot more research that needs to go into this.

Proportion of genders in journalism
Most dangerous sections of journalism to be in
Most dangerous countries to be a journalist in
How does the proportion of women in those parts of journalism compare to overall?

[–]HiderBehinderleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Afaik 1 in 3 are woman, though not sure if that was the war reporter count or the general count.

[–]AnFGhosterleft-wing male advocate 48 points49 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

When men die it's a statistic; when women die it's a tragedy.

[–]Skeleton_Warrior[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

The deaths of innocent men and women are equally tragic to me, but to this garbage organization only female victims matter.

[–]NimishApteleft-wing male advocate 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

It can be often be seen with including women and children.

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

That's true - this Twitter account is documenting examples of the 'including women and children' trope if you're interested:

[–]Peptocoptr 31 points32 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The comments bring me hope.

[–]jpla86 6 points7 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah I was pleasantly surprised.

[–]Delicious-Tea-6718 18 points19 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

All the replies to the tweet where like :WTF??" I would think it was satire if it wasn't from "UN women" account

[–]CoffeeBoom 12 points13 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

This made the round on another sub I'm in, and there was a very interesting (and damning of the UN) on there, from u/KxPbmjLI :

Misandry is everywhere, it's just invisible to most people. we're conditioned like it doesn't exist and that only women can be the victims of anything.

Here's another UN banger

and a study which highlights a lot of the problems within the UN and WHO.

Males fare worse than females on many health outcomes, but more attention, particularly at a national level, is given to women’s issues. This apparent paradox might be explained by gamma bias or a similar gender bias construct. The purpose of the current paper is to present six streams of evidence that illustrate a bias against men’s issues within the United Nations (UN) and World Health Organization (WHO). First, the UN’s sustainable development goal on ‘gender equality’ is exclusive to females. Second, the UN observes nine International Days for women’s issues/achievements and one day for men’s issues/achievements. Third, the UN operates 69 Twitter accounts dedicated to women’s issues, culminating in 328,251 tweets since 2008. The UN does not operate a Twitter account for men’s issues. Fourth, female words (e.g., ‘women’) appear more frequently than male words (e.g., ‘men’) in documents archived in the UN and WHO databases, indicating more attention to women’s issues. Fifth, in WHO reports where similar use of male and female words might be expected (e.g., gender and health reports), female words appear more frequently. Sixth, more female than male words appear in the Bulletin of the World Health Organization, with articles on women’s health more frequently non-original research (e.g., editorials). Overall, because the UN and WHO are the causal agents directly responsible for the outcomes assessed, the findings reveal a bias against men’s issues within these organisations.

Some more

the UN preferring treatment and help for women in the ebola outbreak with no evidence

and again in haiti, only giving supplies to women

misandry is just such a blackpill, it's a never ending depressing rabit hole of which nobody cares about. not men nor women

[–]LakiL_left-wing male advocate 11 points12 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Quick Google search got me other interesting numbers...

You might be wondering: what is the ratio of journalists? Well, reporters are 55% women.

Violence against men is so normalized in our DNA that absurdo things like this are ok.

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

Thanks for this comment. I was wondering if perhaps the issue was there were far fewer female journalists, and therefore the numbers killed represented a higher proportion of their numbers overall. Clearly that is not the case, and instead this is another case of selective empathy.

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

they're being targeted by people with very bad aim

[–]Even_Amphibian7240 4 points5 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

I could understand if there was evidence of a disproportionate rise in female journalists being killed and that they were specifically targeted because they were women but from what I can see neither of these are the case.

[–]politicsthrowaway230 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

They're getting ratiod in the comments, I'm not too worried. But yes it's very drole when people bring up that men also suffer from a problem that's traditionally thought a woman's problem then get accused of whataboutism, yet we see stuff like this where vast female minorities are emphasised over male ones. (I've even seen someone say "just because something mainly effects men, doesn't mean it's a man's issue, which is frankly hilarious considering the spin often put on things)

If you cut out "stop targeting female journalists", I would think this is perfectly valid if people talked about journalists being killed as if it's only ever men, (this is where "men get raped too" is an acceptable rebuttal for example) but this would seem like a very weird accusation? I'm not sure if this happens. If it does, then it'd be a valid point to make. But saying "stop targeting female journalists" and leaving it at that is frankly disgusting, the implication that you don't really care if journalists die provided they're not women is horrible. "Stop killing journalists" is enough.

Sometimes you can't get a gendered spin on a situation in favour of your favoured gender, and that's ok. There are many things that disproportionately effect women, and many things that disproportionately effect men. We need an even-handed approach where we can discuss both honestly, and not try to spin it in the opposite direction.

[–]beeen_there 17 points18 points  (24 children) | Copy Link

UN could be a fantastic organisation if it was actually democratic (one member, one vote) and had agency (teeth).

Much like democracy generally.... (the concept, not the illusion)

But, as is, identity politics obscures the grim reality.

As designed.

[–]Skeleton_Warrior[S] 22 points23 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

They're another crooked and shady organization, one of many.

In the comments section of that tweet there's some morons saying for men to be targetted more and one even said that male victims already get attention and this is ensuring female victims aren't forgotten. Well it sure seems we never hear about the male victims. More divisive "us vs. them" nonsense. Fortunately, the majority of responses are upset and people are criticizing UN Women for this tweet. As they should. UN Women was always a joke of an organization but now this effectively has killed any credability they had (which was none) and they showed their true colors with how blatantly misandrist they are towards the rights and well-being of men and boys.

[–]beeen_there 9 points10 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

nobody gives a shit about male victims. That's why we cc

[–]Skeleton_Warrior[S] 3 points4 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Sad but true. The world could literally be coming to an end right now and we'll still be hearing about how women are most affected.

[–]MelissaMiranti 7 points8 points  (12 children) | Copy Link

UN could be a fantastic organisation if it was actually democratic (one member, one vote) and had agency (teeth).

I don't think Monaco should have the same representation as a country with 100,000,000+ people.

[–]beeen_there 0 points1 point  (11 children) | Copy Link

I hear you, but while we have nation states, it must be one state, one vote in a global forum. The current veto prevents UN agency, undermines and unbalances it as an institution.

Ultimately, nation states tend to impede human progression. Geopolitics and conflict do nothing for the majority of people and perpetuate inequality and suffering. The aim must be to progress beyond this. UN reform is probalbly the best way to start.

[–]MelissaMiranti 2 points3 points  (10 children) | Copy Link

Why must it be one state, one vote? That encourages fracturing for certain states and imperialism for others.

[–]beeen_there 0 points1 point  (9 children) | Copy Link

what do you suggest then?

[–]MelissaMiranti 2 points3 points  (8 children) | Copy Link

Representational voting proportional to population.

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

Except that autocratic leaders such as Xi and Putin do not really represent their population.

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

That is a downside, yes, but I'd rather not have a new Electoral College privileging the few.

[–]beeen_there 1 point2 points  (5 children) | Copy Link

Makes sense, and could be a better fit eventually. But while there is one government for each nation, that has to be the start point.

Otherwise its just much the same as it is now with the vetoes - which is biggest nation runs the show.

[–]MelissaMiranti 1 point2 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

Except that in your attempt to make it democratic you're making it horrifically unequal on human terms. One priest in the Vatican has as much power on the world stage in that case as 2.7 million Chinese people.

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

as I said, I agree with the theory, but you would have to break down the nation state system first and have governments based on population segment too. As they are the representatives.

Until then, one nation one vote.

Vatican shouldn't count though!

[–]MelissaMiranti 0 points1 point  (2 children) | Copy Link

You also run into the problem of what is and isn't a nation state to be recognized, as your last sentence points out.

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

The UN was never intedned to be a fair or democratic forum, it was expressly set up to promote capitalist hegemony, evidenced by the fact that the original security council was comprised of 4 capitalist representatives one USSR representative. When China flipped to Communism they were removed from the council, for fear that it would "upset the balance of power."

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

Not bothered what it was intended to be.

Am saying what it could, and should, be.

A global forum; one member, one vote, with teeth.

[–]Fearless-File-3625 5 points6 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Permanent 5 are the nations that won the ww2. In China's case, initially ROC had the control of mainland till 1949, so their representative was on the UN's seat. China was never removed from the council.

It has very little to do with being communist, capitalist or democratic forum.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 3 points4 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

it was expressly set up to promote capitalist hegemony

Evidence? And then I mean something from foundational documents or so.

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

With sub organizations like UN women and WEF in it best possible outcome for the world would be the dissolution of UN

[–]loveandmagic222 -5 points-4 points  (4 children) | Copy Link

It's a women's organization, of course they will stand up for women, just like men's organizations will stand up for's nothing against men

[–]OppositeBeautiful601left-wing male advocate 9 points10 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The text of the tweet:

"Of all journalists killed in 2021, 11% were women. In 2020, this was 6%. (Source:



On the International Day to #EndImpunity for Crimes against Journalists, let us say out loud:





89% of Journalists killed were men, yet UN Women says, stop targeting women. It's dismissive of men's lives. It's against men, whether intentional or not.

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 1 point2 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Happy Cake Day!

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

As I said in response to another dismissive comment:

It's an organization that is part of the UN and gets monetized by our national governments. My tax money goes to that organization, so they have a duty not to be so blatantly sexist.

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

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