Apparently the recent Wisconsin female school shooter, Samantha Rupnow was known to spew hatred towards men and to believe that all men needed to be killed in order for women to be free to create a new world.
"Redistribution of violence." Why do I have the feeling I'm going to be hearing that phrase a lot in the next few years, and not just in the context of misandry.
I was part of the feminist movement for a couple of years. I have three sons and I thought I was doing the right thing to help them not inherit such a toxic outlook on the world and be swallowed up by it
I was on a pretty famous Instagram account who is a feminist and in the comments, the women were saying things like first rule of animal husbandry kill all the males.
I think feminism accomplished some good things historically, but I think the pendulum has now swung so far and the other direction that most of these women have become the violent controllers that they hated. They can’t even see it.
So now I’m no longer feminist and no longer liberal. I’m also not religious or conservative. I’m just kind of here being me.
Anyway, I think the men have it harder than women do to be honest. At least women are allowed to have their emotions, even if we’re called crazy for it.
If you have three sons I highly recommend you having a look at the Understanding Men section that highlights the research on boys and men that the mainstream media has refused to report. https://menaregood.substack.com/s/understanding-men
I have regrets raising my son too.. Thankfully I straighten up, and he is a wonderfully young man. But it’s the one thing I do wish I could go back in time and change..
Digging into the 2nd wave of feminism, their core belief was men are the oppressors, it’s finally just made it into culture.
We got bamboozled, as women. To believe in it. As I matured you realize it doesn't work…
I must say, he’s 20 now and finding himself as a young man and it makes me so proud that I had my husband to show him. His responsible, task orientated, and driven. He’s not afraid to do things either. He’s 2nd year in college 12 hours away, and we’re encouraging him to get on with life <3
"men's violence against women is far more common" Likely false: domestic violence statistics show that mutual abuse is most commonly female-initiated and asymmetric abuse is more often female on male. An interesting illustration of this is that domestic violence rates are significantly higher in lesbian relationships than gay relationships.
"less justified," Given that surveys on this topic tend to show that women initiate violence primarily in response to "he said/did something" whereas men tend to do so primarily in retaliation for her hitting him first...
"and more destructive than women's violence against men." Well yes, men are typically stronger and more durable than their female peers, so equivalent actions have disproportionate effects. "Women don't have the strength to hit as hard" isn't much of a MORAL defense of them engaging in abuse.
You are correct. Although men deal more damage with equivalent actions (a man's punch typically has much more force than a woman's punch and a man can take a much heavier hit than a woman), women are correspondingly much more likely than men to use weapons (generally improvised: there is some truth to the stereotypes of women throwing plates and brandishing a frying pan or rolling pin).
That said, the overall statistics on domestic violence do show that women suffer injuries at significantly higher rates than men (as measured by metrics like emergency room visits). OTOH, statistics also show that men are much less likely to report domestic violence or seek medical aid, especially if the injury was inflicted by a woman, so it's not necessarily clear whether women actually suffer injury at higher rates or whether men's underreporting is hiding equal or higher injury rates. I'm still inclined to think that women have the higher injury rates (weapons can give women equivalent lethality to men, but not equivalent durability to men), but it's something of an open question.
Thanks, Tom, for including the footnote information (although I rewrote it in the humanities style). Any academic who refers to this grotesque article--from a law professor!--must do so properly and often, because it's a classic example of misandry.
By the way, your distinction between "radical" and "mainstream" feminism is not revealing enough, because many in the latter category actually accept radical misandry--or at least condone it as the means to achieve their end. I sometimes refer to "ideological" and "egalitarian" feminism, but that's no good, because many people don't honor anything remotely like egalitarianism; instead, they replace equality with equity. I'd suggest "ideological" and "liberal" feminism. Even that's not good enough, though, because "liberal" can mean whatever liberals want it to mean--and that varies considerably from one period or context to another. There's no solution to this verbal problem. Just make sure that no one gets away with either intentional or unintentional deception.
I think it’s misleading to divide contemporary feminists into "radical" vs "mainstream" or "ideological" vs "egalitarian". If a feminist goes along with discrimination or misandry instead of calling it out then I see no difference between them. And I don’t see any dissent among contemporary feminists.
We should be careful of minimising the harm that "just going along with the rest" can cause. After considering Adolf Eichmann and his role in the holocaust, philosopher Hannah Arendt coined the phrase "the banality of evil". She wrote that he wasn’t a monster, just a joiner: "Going along with the rest and wanting to say 'we' were quite enough to make the greatest of all crimes possible".
What you say is perfectly true, Tony, but it's not always demonstrable and therefore generally impractical. I can't see into anyone's head, after all, which means that I can't actually prove that egalitarian rhetoric is the result of either hypocrisy or outright lies--not unless I can show that someone's egalitarian rhetoric contradicts hostile behavior. Even so, doing that adds an extra step to the argument. And it's a difficult one, because it's become counter-intuitive in the public square. Many feminists truly believe that their personal and collective identity is purely egalitarian. Better to avoid the name-calling distraction by allowing the word "egalitarian" in theory and arguing only in specific cases to demonstrate the deception or self-deception.
The thing is, this sort of mentality is an outcropping of a mindset that’s very detached from reality. Unfortunately it looks like it’s gonna be an issue for sometime
With me. (42 years ago). She didn’t take ‘no’ for an answer. I really didn’t want to, but she was super persistent. I was young and more or less always horny. It was easier to do it than argue anymore. Anyway, it was okay. But…she wasn’t single. Her husband had cheated on her and she wanted to retaliate. He was out of town working for a month. He was a psycho. I left her place thinking ‘man, that was weird’. He came back to town a few weeks later and tried to kill me. Because she called him two minutes after I left.
What I find amazing is the claim about "The War Against Women" when it is a war against men.
The claim that somehow the patriarchy was able to control female fertility, when in reality, it is the female who controls male fertility; she decides which male gets to pass his genetic code onto the next generation.
The claim that women receive harsher penalties under the law when, in actuality, the data shows that it is men who receive harsher penalties under the law.
"The Burning Bed Murders" I read about somewhere where a scorned woman would murder the man in his bed.
Or that case where a woman was found innocent of murder because she was experiencing PMS.
It only takes a glance at how advocacy research is conducted, the missing data, the data that is not collected, and the obtuse circular arguments that gender study Professors use to manipulate their undergraduate students.
In "Who Stole Feminism", the Professors of Gender Studies use techniques to engage the emotional responses of their undergraduate students in order to recruit agitators and I think it was also mentioned to try and switch heterosexual female students into becoming lesbians.
2) keep the Identity Politics coalition from turning into a circular firing squad.
The good news is, when you start talking mass murder you’ve lost whatever moral high ground you might have had. But, of course, talk like that just confirms the fact that they never had any in the first place, since this was always their goal.
Not part of women like that... maybe fun to make a point... yet all men, everyone of them, are born through women. So a responsibility is to raise boys right.
I am a woman and most of my close friends are men. It's hard for me to relate to women with small female issues focus.
I will never forget reading the novel, She by Henry Rider Haggard, published in 1897. It is still available. Amazon describes the protagonist as "She-who-must-be-obeyed: dictator, femme fatale, tyrant and beauty." Despite the masculine name, the author was female. She writes about three Englishmen who discover the white queen in Africa, and describes the hideous way she kills men by baking their heads in a fired pot placed over their heads, apparently motivated by the memory of her long ago lover. The warped hatred of men by women has been around a long time.
A movie based on the book came out in 1965, before most of us were even aware of gynocentric murderous rage. Most of are still befuddled by feminism, and see it as relatively harmless, if misdirected.
"Redistribution of violence." Why do I have the feeling I'm going to be hearing that phrase a lot in the next few years, and not just in the context of misandry.
Verbal violence AKA false allegations and libel should be included
I was part of the feminist movement for a couple of years. I have three sons and I thought I was doing the right thing to help them not inherit such a toxic outlook on the world and be swallowed up by it
I was on a pretty famous Instagram account who is a feminist and in the comments, the women were saying things like first rule of animal husbandry kill all the males.
I think feminism accomplished some good things historically, but I think the pendulum has now swung so far and the other direction that most of these women have become the violent controllers that they hated. They can’t even see it.
So now I’m no longer feminist and no longer liberal. I’m also not religious or conservative. I’m just kind of here being me.
Anyway, I think the men have it harder than women do to be honest. At least women are allowed to have their emotions, even if we’re called crazy for it.
If you have three sons I highly recommend you having a look at the Understanding Men section that highlights the research on boys and men that the mainstream media has refused to report. https://menaregood.substack.com/s/understanding-men
Will do, thanks
I have regrets raising my son too.. Thankfully I straighten up, and he is a wonderfully young man. But it’s the one thing I do wish I could go back in time and change..
Digging into the 2nd wave of feminism, their core belief was men are the oppressors, it’s finally just made it into culture.
We got bamboozled, as women. To believe in it. As I matured you realize it doesn't work…
As Fritz Perls used to say, "Becoming is better than being." Talk to your son now about this and see what comes up. I bet he will appreciate it.
Aw, thank you. I will pass that along.
I must say, he’s 20 now and finding himself as a young man and it makes me so proud that I had my husband to show him. His responsible, task orientated, and driven. He’s not afraid to do things either. He’s 2nd year in college 12 hours away, and we’re encouraging him to get on with life <3
"men's violence against women is far more common" Likely false: domestic violence statistics show that mutual abuse is most commonly female-initiated and asymmetric abuse is more often female on male. An interesting illustration of this is that domestic violence rates are significantly higher in lesbian relationships than gay relationships.
"less justified," Given that surveys on this topic tend to show that women initiate violence primarily in response to "he said/did something" whereas men tend to do so primarily in retaliation for her hitting him first...
"and more destructive than women's violence against men." Well yes, men are typically stronger and more durable than their female peers, so equivalent actions have disproportionate effects. "Women don't have the strength to hit as hard" isn't much of a MORAL defense of them engaging in abuse.
The last paragraph is also true, but there are many 'eualizers' like knifes, guns, and .... women's favourite.... surprise effect.
This is why men usually get poisoned, shot, knifed by suprise or while asleep.
So murder attempts on husbands are more planned, whereas wife killings happen rather during the heat of the moment.
You are correct. Although men deal more damage with equivalent actions (a man's punch typically has much more force than a woman's punch and a man can take a much heavier hit than a woman), women are correspondingly much more likely than men to use weapons (generally improvised: there is some truth to the stereotypes of women throwing plates and brandishing a frying pan or rolling pin).
That said, the overall statistics on domestic violence do show that women suffer injuries at significantly higher rates than men (as measured by metrics like emergency room visits). OTOH, statistics also show that men are much less likely to report domestic violence or seek medical aid, especially if the injury was inflicted by a woman, so it's not necessarily clear whether women actually suffer injury at higher rates or whether men's underreporting is hiding equal or higher injury rates. I'm still inclined to think that women have the higher injury rates (weapons can give women equivalent lethality to men, but not equivalent durability to men), but it's something of an open question.
You Can't Make This Up Department.
Thanks, Tom, for including the footnote information (although I rewrote it in the humanities style). Any academic who refers to this grotesque article--from a law professor!--must do so properly and often, because it's a classic example of misandry.
By the way, your distinction between "radical" and "mainstream" feminism is not revealing enough, because many in the latter category actually accept radical misandry--or at least condone it as the means to achieve their end. I sometimes refer to "ideological" and "egalitarian" feminism, but that's no good, because many people don't honor anything remotely like egalitarianism; instead, they replace equality with equity. I'd suggest "ideological" and "liberal" feminism. Even that's not good enough, though, because "liberal" can mean whatever liberals want it to mean--and that varies considerably from one period or context to another. There's no solution to this verbal problem. Just make sure that no one gets away with either intentional or unintentional deception.
I think it’s misleading to divide contemporary feminists into "radical" vs "mainstream" or "ideological" vs "egalitarian". If a feminist goes along with discrimination or misandry instead of calling it out then I see no difference between them. And I don’t see any dissent among contemporary feminists.
We should be careful of minimising the harm that "just going along with the rest" can cause. After considering Adolf Eichmann and his role in the holocaust, philosopher Hannah Arendt coined the phrase "the banality of evil". She wrote that he wasn’t a monster, just a joiner: "Going along with the rest and wanting to say 'we' were quite enough to make the greatest of all crimes possible".
What you say is perfectly true, Tony, but it's not always demonstrable and therefore generally impractical. I can't see into anyone's head, after all, which means that I can't actually prove that egalitarian rhetoric is the result of either hypocrisy or outright lies--not unless I can show that someone's egalitarian rhetoric contradicts hostile behavior. Even so, doing that adds an extra step to the argument. And it's a difficult one, because it's become counter-intuitive in the public square. Many feminists truly believe that their personal and collective identity is purely egalitarian. Better to avoid the name-calling distraction by allowing the word "egalitarian" in theory and arguing only in specific cases to demonstrate the deception or self-deception.
Agree Paul. Let's just talk about feminism as being the hateful culprit. Silence is acceptance and we have seen lots of that for a long time.
Great post, this is something that I’ve been trying to elaborate on as well
https://open.substack.com/pub/brackishwatersbarrensoil/p/why-feminism-continues-to-fail
The thing is, this sort of mentality is an outcropping of a mindset that’s very detached from reality. Unfortunately it looks like it’s gonna be an issue for sometime
A ‘single’ woman wanted to sleep
With me. (42 years ago). She didn’t take ‘no’ for an answer. I really didn’t want to, but she was super persistent. I was young and more or less always horny. It was easier to do it than argue anymore. Anyway, it was okay. But…she wasn’t single. Her husband had cheated on her and she wanted to retaliate. He was out of town working for a month. He was a psycho. I left her place thinking ‘man, that was weird’. He came back to town a few weeks later and tried to kill me. Because she called him two minutes after I left.
Damn man, glad you are here to tell the story.
It was very close. He had his gun and was drinking in a bar I owned.
The number of women that deliberately cause fights between men is pretty high. They are younger usually. But they cause a lot of damage.
Yes indeed, it's a game that was named in the 70's called let's you and him fight.
Mary Anne Franks is the type of (primary) psychopath who is described so thoroughly in Andrew Lobaczevski's *Political Ponerology*.
What I find amazing is the claim about "The War Against Women" when it is a war against men.
The claim that somehow the patriarchy was able to control female fertility, when in reality, it is the female who controls male fertility; she decides which male gets to pass his genetic code onto the next generation.
The claim that women receive harsher penalties under the law when, in actuality, the data shows that it is men who receive harsher penalties under the law.
"The Burning Bed Murders" I read about somewhere where a scorned woman would murder the man in his bed.
Or that case where a woman was found innocent of murder because she was experiencing PMS.
It only takes a glance at how advocacy research is conducted, the missing data, the data that is not collected, and the obtuse circular arguments that gender study Professors use to manipulate their undergraduate students.
In "Who Stole Feminism", the Professors of Gender Studies use techniques to engage the emotional responses of their undergraduate students in order to recruit agitators and I think it was also mentioned to try and switch heterosexual female students into becoming lesbians.
I think it was Warren Farrell that wrote about the Burning Bed Murders in The Myth of Male Power.
Having read so many books, it is hard to remember who wrote what. Thanks for that.
Indeed.
It really looks like feminist projection.
I'll bet she lost 10 pounds after pulling that bullshit out of her ass.
Just another attempt to keep to,
1) keep white feminists relevant,
but more importantly,
2) keep the Identity Politics coalition from turning into a circular firing squad.
The good news is, when you start talking mass murder you’ve lost whatever moral high ground you might have had. But, of course, talk like that just confirms the fact that they never had any in the first place, since this was always their goal.
Feminism is a male power fantasy.
Men rule the world and they always have.
Men have total power and agency, women have no power and no agency.
Men are elephants, women are butterflies.
Even the male gaze shoots out harmful lasers which harm women.
Not only does feminism encourage violence towards men, feminism defines women as incapable of harming men and men as incapable of being harmed.
Utterly disgusting. I for one would hate a world without men.
It likely wouldn't last long....
Not part of women like that... maybe fun to make a point... yet all men, everyone of them, are born through women. So a responsibility is to raise boys right.
I am a woman and most of my close friends are men. It's hard for me to relate to women with small female issues focus.
Thank you for this lovely read!
Kill All Men. KAM.
They eat carburetors for breakfast!
I will never forget reading the novel, She by Henry Rider Haggard, published in 1897. It is still available. Amazon describes the protagonist as "She-who-must-be-obeyed: dictator, femme fatale, tyrant and beauty." Despite the masculine name, the author was female. She writes about three Englishmen who discover the white queen in Africa, and describes the hideous way she kills men by baking their heads in a fired pot placed over their heads, apparently motivated by the memory of her long ago lover. The warped hatred of men by women has been around a long time.
A movie based on the book came out in 1965, before most of us were even aware of gynocentric murderous rage. Most of are still befuddled by feminism, and see it as relatively harmless, if misdirected.
Feminism is anything but “harmless” just ask any of the men killed by it!
I never knew Haggard was a woman. Thanks for the heads up.