~ archived since 2018 ~

Women are victim blaming when they devalue male-on-male violence

March 30, 2021

Just wanted to share this rhetorical device with everyone.

After the disgusting exploitation of Sarah Everard's murder and the misandry it created, it has been very common to see "But it's men doing the attacking" when you mention the fact that men are twice as likely to be attacked by a stranger or murdered.

This is victim blaming because it's not ultimately about the gender of the attacker but the gender of the VICTIM. We know this because if the attacker was male and the victim was female, it's considered Worthy of Empathy by the ctrl-left but if the attacker is still male, but the victim is male this time, then it's NBD.

It's clear, unapologetic victim-blaming. Imagine being murdered knowing that society will care less about your death because you share a gender with your attacker. It rends my heart.

It's also embracing traditional gender norms in the expectation that all men are supposed to protect all women and so any women being harmed is a failure of all men.

When did we become Neo-Victorian?

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 This post has been archived from the subreddit /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates.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
Red Pill terms in post

[–]politicsthrowaway230 99 points100 points  (7 children) | Copy Link

I've usually seen the argument go like this:

> Women have much more to worry about, they can't leave the house without fear of getting attacked

> Actually, men are more likely to be attacked, and the statistics show that.

> Yeah, but by men (how they think this relates to the first message I haven't a clue, since that's not what's being contested, it just makes it sound like they're blindly lashing out)

> Continues to parrot the first line in full knowledge it's faulty.

which makes this even more of a non-argument, it makes zero sense as a "rebuttal".

Or they start talking about how women are apparently killed because of their gender and men aren't. Like, what? Given these people are some of the first to cry whataboutism it startles me how much they love reverting to it.

Fundamentally - no-one is really that safe walking alone at night. Men are not some immortal superhumans. Not all (I daresay most won't since the criminal will have already considered this) men will be able to defend themselves despite their image in popular culture, and some will be even less equipped to defend themselves than the average woman. (to take an extreme example, if they're physically disabled)

[–][deleted] 57 points58 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Fundamentally - no-one is really that safe walking alone at night

I live in a city. I had a weird sleep schedule a while back, so I was wide awake at 5AM and wanted to go for a run.

I really wanted to go and would have, except I didn't feel like dying that day.

I might have been OK, but you never know. A few months later, a couple of women were stabbed by another woman at 2AM around the same area.

[–][deleted] 45 points46 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Did anyone tell those women to fuck off because they were the same gender as the attacker

[–]BloomingBrains 12 points13 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

and some will be even less equipped to defend themselves than the average woman. (to take an extreme example, if they're physically disabled)

One not need even go that far. I'm 5'8 and weigh 150 pounds. I'm pretty sure a 6'3 dude who weighs 250 pounds could easily kill me if he wanted to in most situations. So while, yes, the strength gap between me and him is smaller than it would be between him and the average woman, this isn't much of a meaningful difference. Yet I somehow manage to live my life without fear, even though I am in the same boat and in fact more likely to be targeted.

It's like they think every guy is built like a UFC fighter, which really highlights how disposable and invisible the rest of the male spectrum that doesn't match their visual preferences is. There is huge variance in the male gender and not recognizing that contributes to a lot of misandry in my opinion.

[–]politicsthrowaway230 4 points5 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Oh I know, personally I'm severely underweight, low muscle tone, with DCD, (I guess I could come under "disabled" but I'd never identify myself as such) and I'd be absolutely no match for a criminal who felt confident enough to take on random people in the middle of the night. I was just giving an extreme example to drive the point home. (since insisting men can stand up for themselves is kind of ableist) Not to mention that even if you could theoretically fight them off if it was bare fists vs bare fists, if they have a blade, gun, taser hidden etc. on them you might have been fucked from the get-go, and have made your situation 10x worse by engaging instead of running or complying.

Going out with the attitude that you're going to fight off threats is one that may well get you killed. (or the perpetrator killed, which could still mean your life is over) Comes from overly romantic views that men are the designated protectors of women and their family - all those patriarchal views that people apparently wish to be rid of.

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

Comes from overly romantic views that men are the designated protectors of women and their family - all those patriarchal views that people apparently wish to be rid of.

And honestly there was probably a time in human history where this made sense. Which is why I think it's so important to talk about biological determinism. All these primitive instincts may have been useful at one point, but that doesn't mean they still have a place in modern society.

[–]peanutbutterjams[S] 7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, but by men (how they think this relates to the first message I haven't a clue, since that's not what's being contested, it just makes it sound like they're blindly lashing out)

The point of this rejoinder is that in they're mind they're proving how immoral men are. And since men are immoral, it doesn't matter if they're being attacked.

It's fully and completely grouping all men into one single entity in a way we have never seen before in 21st century. It's that regressive. How else would you describe this level of dehumanization? To not only condense every individual into a caricature, but an evil mustache-twirling-with-your-dick-out caricature.

"Yes, but they're attacked by men". It's like talking to racists about the high rate of violence in inner-city black communities and them dismissing it by saying "Yeah but it's mostly black-on-black crime" as if every one of them deserve it for having the weak moral constitution to have been born black.

That's what I get. Hate. It's hate. TLDR.

[–]politicsthrowaway230 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Yeah that's kind of what I mean by lashing out. They don't actually have a specific point, they just want to unleash anger out at men as a collective and communicate that "men bad and problematic, they have to deal with that". They just want to exonerate women, distance themselves from the issue, and continue to sit on their high horse.

I've seen very few unconvinced people "get" substituting men with "black people". The point is that they are literally following the precise bigoted lines of thought that are used to justify racism, and they just don't see it because it's directed at a "majority" (not really lol) instead of a minority. It reminds me of this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev373c7wSRg. I don't think I'll ever understand the idea that whether "prejudice" on the basis of gender/race/etc. is ok is wholly dependent on the gender/race of perpetrator and the victim. It gives the wrong idea.

[–]loonthinkleft-wing male advocate 49 points50 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

Radical feminism is uninterested in statistically-verified argumentation, drawing logical conclusions or policymaking to benefit society at large. It's a hate movement singularly interested in pushing a narrative of perpetual female victimhood and male aggression.

The fact that the evidence does not back up this narrative (particularly in Western nations) is of little consequence to its proponents. They are an ideologically-driven group; the statistics and evidence can be cherry-picked and manipulated to suit whatever they want them to say. That violence-against-men is so casually swept aside in their minds by the fact that it usually male aggressors merely betrays their misandry.

[–]fndo84 33 points34 points  (3 children) | Copy Link

Besides blaming the victim, the main phallacy of that argument is that even though the majority of perpetrators are men, not the majority of men are perpetrators. Decades of research show that majority of crime is committed by a small group of persistent offenders (between 1% and 7% of population):

1945: University of Pennsylvania - about 6% is accountable for 52% of violent crime https://www.jstor.org/stable/986609?seq=1

1982: University of Pennsylvania (follow up study) - about 7% accountable for 61% offenses https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/86680NCJRS.pdf

2006: University of Cambridge - 7% accountable for half of all offenses http://www.crim.cam.ac.uk/people/academic_research/david_farrington/hofind281.pdf

2014: University of Gothenburg - 1% of population accountable for 63% of violent crime https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969807/#__ffn_sectitle

So, labeling a whole group that represents half of the population as criminals (or "potential" criminals) is blatantly hate speech.

[–]2717192619192left-wing male advocate 15 points16 points  (0 children) | Copy Link

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

the main phallacy

Please keep this.

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

Saved your comment for future reference. Thanks!

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

Perhaps an appropriate rejoinder would be to point out that both male criminals and female criminals are more likely to attack men. If we're talking about victimisation, that's an issue. If we're talking about perpetration, that's an issue.

[–]serial-grapeist 7 points8 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't try to argue with them in that situation, because they are way too stupid to understand. I just tell them that a woman in the UK is 7 times more likely to kill herself then she is to be killed by a man.

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

And then follow up with how much more likely a man is to kill himself than a woman is to kill herself.

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

A few other points:

  • Men ten towards extremes, both biologically and psychologically, whereas women are more average. Meaning the most psychotic and violent are among us, but also the least.
  • One can easily appropriate this logic to say that it's NBD if female child abusers abuse girls, but not ok if they abuse boys, because the perpetrator and victim share a sex.

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

Just keep this in mind: when a male is the perpetrator, and the victim is male, even if the victim is a young boy, the violence cancels itself out. 1-1=0.

^ The feminist ideology.

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

To be fair, men also do that. Probably not to the same degree though.

[–]ActualDriver8 6 points7 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

The gender of the person who does that doesn't matter, what matters is that PEOPLE do that. Why do we have to categorize everything to one gender? For example why say MEN rape instead of PEOPLE rape? What do we get from saying only men rape and not women? Absolutely nothing, the only thing that happens here is that we say that women can't rape. Same as we don't say women abuse children, but PEOPLE abuse children (though the ratios here are not the same, but you get the point). Edit: sorry if this sounds like an attack on you, its not. Just my opinion. Didn't mean for it to come out like that

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

Thanks. It did look like you had gone off track and were criticizing me. Now I get your intent.

Yeah. Frustrating that men can apparently only be the villain in the cultural narrative.

[–]1Badshot 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

When a woman is attacked no amount of circumstances can make her any less of a victim.

When a man is attacked no amount of innocence on the his part makes it any less the man's fault he became a victim.

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

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