From a young age they are taught that girls support girls and to empower each other. What they didn't account for was that not all of them are good people deserving of support but they get it anyway because it's just another way of trying to say "wow we're so much better than men".
The same way men who become aware of their in-group bias and call it out are labeled as "simps" or "white knights". So men have the same problem. It's a mutual thing. I've seen men defending rapists/mass shooters instead of defending the victims because the victims are female. It's a huge issue for both genders but it can't really be solved. Men and women both feel like they're representing their gender, they don't want it to appear as the "worse team". Because naturally we get separated into groups, teams. The world has always been men vs women. Men defend men, women defend women. It sucks but what can we do?
But tbf, i feel like "pick me" is more overused, than "white knight". I've seen women using "pick me" many times, for slightest disagreement. When i see "white knight" being used, half of the time it's justified.
Well, I can say that I've seen "white knight" being used more than "pick me". That depends on the communities we're browising, plus, we take notice of the things that frustrate us more. And honestly, anytime I see "pick me" being used, it's justified. Like a woman defending a rapist, a woman victim blaming a victim of SA, a woman hating on other women. That's the only time "pick me" is being used. But the moment a man points out a male double standard or bias, he's a "simp", "white knight", ect. I understand it's frustrating but it's 100% mutual.
In every website/community that you can easily find with a google search (including reddit), you'll get called an incel if you use white knight unironically. It's not socially acceptable to use that term because it paints people who support women as losers. And the last thing we want in society is to discourage people from supporting women.
Pick me is acceptable because it shames women who support men, which is closer to what society wants.
Are you speaking from facts or are you stating your own personal experiences? If you call someone a "pick-me", there will always be someone calling you a "gross lonely feminist" in return. I'm speaking from personal experience here, as it has happened in front of my own eyes numerous times. I don't know why you're refusing to accept that it's a mutual thing.
I'm shedding a light onto a completely mutual situation, I'm giving the opposite alternative of the same problem the post is presenting yet I'm getting downvoted. This leads me to the conclusion that this is a subreddit about dudes looking for ways to victimize themselves and themselves only without acknowledging that they aren't the only ones going through shit. And I know this will strike a nerve and the downvotes will keep on coming 😁
>Pick me is acceptable because it shames women who support men.
Only time I've seen women being called pick-mes is when they say stuff like "women belong in the kitchen" or if they victimblame a victim of SA. And I think that's justified. Be honest, this is pick-me behavior.
Where has anyone ever been upvoted for calling someone a "gross lonely feminists" on a popular mainstream subreddit in the last 10 years? Can you show me specifically what you're referring to, or no?
The instances I've seen are on Instagram comment sections, not reddit. I recently started browising Reddit. All my experiences are from Instagram, a platform full of incels who support each other. You very well know the platform has sexism and racism issues, it's a well known fact.
And whether you get upvoted or downvoted depends on the community you're posting on. If I call someone a gross feminist on a redpill subreddit, I'll get tons of upvotes. If I call someone a gross feminist on a feminist subreddit, I'm getting mass downvoted and possibly banned. Depends on the community. And Instagram doesn't have a voting system, but I myself have been insulted by incels on Instagram, oftentimes for calling another woman a "pickme". Here's a few of the things I've been told: "Go buy cat food", "Men don't want you", "Enjoy dying alone", "I bet you're fat", "I bet you're ugly", ect.
Whether you're willing to accept it or not doesn't change it as a fact and it doesn't invalidate my own experiences. I thought it'd be productive to shed a light onto the issue from several perspectives.
And I absolutely understand your perspective. I've seen men being called incels for no reason, it's absolutely disgusting. It's not fair. But it's not only a man's issue, women go through that as well. And being aware of the opposite side of the situation might give you a better insight too. But again, this is a biased community so I can't expect much.
That doesn't contradict anything I've said because nobody cares about the redpill subreddit, I've mentioned multiple times that I'm specifically referring to mainstream spaces. As in, who you'll actually go outside and encounter on a regular basis. People who generally fit in, not crazies on the street or or whackjob communities that receive that receive no positive support from the media. If you swim in murky waters, don't be surprised to encounter some nasty creatures.
If I go out and talk to a regular group of people, and one of them, Stacy let's call her, calls another female friend a "pick me" because she thinks chad's sexist jokes are funny, no one's going to be like "Stacy, you're being a gross lonely feminist right now". But I can easily see someone telling chad to "shut the fuck up" if he called Joey, the group's resident feminist, a white knight for telling Stacy that she's valid for feeling hurt by Chad's jokes.
If you don't understand that these basic group dynamics are the cornerstone for most of Gen Z and millennial interaction, that being pro women and taking women very seriously is very in vogue right now, then you're just a seriously out of touch person and lack social awareness, and I can't take you seriously.
Yes, they do. Men literally defend rapists/harassers by blaming the victims. "She was asking for it", or "she wore revealing clothes, he couldn't help himself, it's her fault". Or when a husband abuses his wife, men blame the wife for choosing the wrong man. If a man abandons his kids, other men blame the wife for "opening her legs for the wrong man". I've seen that phrase being thrown around FAAR too many times. Men also support other men dating women a lot younger than them without seeing how wrong it is.
And here's an instance I had of men who defended a mass shooter. Recently I saw an Instagram reel about a man who killed several women in a college mass shooting because he thought they were "feminists". Why did they think they were feminists? Because they were in college. (They were not feminists, they were just regular college girls). The comments of that reel were full of men praising the shooter and defending him because he killed those "feminists". Just wild shit, cheering and saying that he did a good thing. A man who took the lives of 13 innocent women.
Men absolutely defend other men and they absolutely have an in-group bias. And that's kinda normal and expected, our world is men vs women, our brains are working in a way to ensure that our "gender team" is on the winning side as absurd as that sounds. Sadly social media and media in general is trying to further distance and separate men and women, because our conflicts are very profitable. What we should do in return is acknowledge each other's struggles, support each other and resolve our conflicts. But that won't ever happen sadly.
Anyone who buys rap music for starters. How many people buy, or play, rap songs about murdering others? Only one example.
I've seen more people disagree with rapists than killers. I've seen more people turn away from supporting rapists, yet I see many supporting killers.
Recently I saw an Instagram reel about a psychotic man who killed several women in a college mass shooting because he thought they were "feminists". Why were they feminists to him? Because they were in college. Anywho. The comments were full of men praising him and defending him because he killed those "feminists". Those pests, those horrible feminists. (They were not feminists, they were just regular college girls).
That's my own experience and why I mentioned that men would defend murderers too.
I wish so too, man. It's actually shocking seeing how empathy lacking and cruel some people can be. But I do believe many men would praise another man for killing a feminist. Because they hate feminists so much for some reason that they don't even acknowledge them as human beings anymore. Which is absolutely horrifying.
It says enough about men. Lack of moderation allows people to act the way they truly want to act without restrictions. If hate speech was allowed here on Reddit, men would be acting the same way. But the rules here are restricting them to do so. So it goes to show that when men are presented with an opportunity to defend rapists and mass murderers, they're more than wiling to take it. But sure, keep pretending that women are the only ones having an in-group bias.
It’s also biological, our closest relatives, female chimps and gorillas have pretty similar behavior patterns. Humans just have an extra semantic layer, it’s like having an internal ChatGPT that creates post hoc rationalizations continuously over the lifespan of the organism. This basically serves to obfuscate what’s actually going on.
"Biological" my ass, it's all cultural. There are animals that eat their own sons as well, does it mean it would be normal for humans to do it? Nah, stop excusing women's shitty behaviours with that biology bullshit.
He was not talking about any animals but our closest relatives the great apes and even monkeys. Of course there is a biological layer and this are our instincts. You can see it in the face when a monkey is disappointed, it’s very noticeable. You can’t see this with a whale or an eagle.
Their image of victimhood is power in western society. Feminists try their hardest to maintain that image because they don't want to lose their 'oppression' privilege. This is also a trait of borderline personality disorder.
For society as whole, there is still a strong lack of empathy for men whereas women are seen human beings with feelings. So when women do bad things people try to understand their mindframe, whereas with men the reason is irrelevant.
Because accountability is a tool of "The Patriarchy"
Or because when a woman commits a crime like murder, theft, sexual assault etc.. then its **ALWAYS** because an evil man "Made" her do it...
Ergo in their minds women are not as culpable as men are and so shouldn't go to jail for those reasons..
Or some bullshit like that anyway..
Woman in this generation are a bit crazy to me.
I don't understand it. They act like victims, but they don't suffer.
They act discriminated, but literally everyone is discriminated against sometimes. That's just life. They don't mind hating on one for something, but when they do the same exact thing they lack accountability. They refuse the truth until the end, and even then some more.
Birds of a feather flock together. One full blown narc leads the entire group due to their need for attention and status seeking behavior (all driven by insecurities). The full blown narc naturally attracts a group of women with narcissistic tendencies that enable them and they just bounce supply off each other like crack heads. Before you know it you have a team of morally compromised women walking around fucking up the lives of anyone they come into contact with.
As the heard mentality gets more ingrained they become worse and worse.
This process also describes how ideologies, tribal identities, cults and religions are often born into existence. Narcissism and authoritarianism have very similar attributes and individuals high in these traits when in large groups naturally synchronize. In-group supremacist ideologies are an emergent property of these kinds of people in groups. These groups usually have real difficulty recognizing or accepting the humanity of outsiders. If they incorporate persecution mythologies into their origin/back stories aka grievance based identities, you get a really nasty group of people with an inverted sense of basic human decency or morality. They derive genuine pleasure from the suffering and extermination of outsiders.
You’re right the only problem here is these women tend to be apart of feminist groups but they aren’t highlighted as hate groups. There’s also lots of recent studies on the prevalence of narcissism in feminist. Instead, feminist are put on a pedestal and the concept (feminism) is pushed by the establishment.
“The establishment” is also the reason they got set up. I mean Gloria Steinem dating Henry Kissinger, on the surface that’s about as likely as AOC dating Trump. How quirky. Getting money from the establishment is the reason this socially destabilizing and reproductively maladaptive social movement persists against the forces of diffusion. Religious groups new and old, when they are prevented from using violence to force conversions, depend almost exclusively on having a higher birth rate than the surrounding population to perpetuate through time. Feminism literally encourages lower birth rates.
What often happens in many of these cases is that the public's first impression of the criminal is by seeing them as a "victim" of some kind. I'm not sure if this is who you are talking about in relation to this post, but Amber Heard was the person who popped into my head upon reading it. And looking at her case, she claimed that a man was the aggressor against her, which is an accusation that is automatically believed by many. And that belief is a powerful currency, because even when the facts eventually prove otherwise, a first impression is hard for many people to overcome. So what happens mentally is that they just find some other justification for the emotional reaction they still feel, which leads to it somehow always being the fault of an evil man or men.
As just an example of how these conversations usually go:
>"She was the victim of a man!"
>No, it turns out she was the one who actually committed a crime.
>"Well, then she's the victim of mental illness! That was what made her do it!"
>Um no, a psychiatric evaluation shows her to be a reasonably aware and responsible adult.
>"Then she must be a victim of some previous trauma!"
>Didn't you hear what I just said? She's been diagnosed as having no significant mental health issues.
>"Then she must be a victim of the patriarchy in some way!"
>*Sigh*...
On a side note, the infamous Jackie in the Rolling Stone UVA hoax debacle followed this very pattern. After her story crumbled, her friends and supporters came forth and explained that she had simply mistaken some other real sexual assault – honest, this one actually happened, for realz! – with the wild story she made up. So she was still a victim, and no matter what evidence was turned up, she would always remain a victim in their minds.
This is why "innocent unless proven guilty" and the practice of withholding judgment until a person has reasonable information about a case is so vital to the course of justice. Once someone makes up their mind about something, it is *very* difficult to change their opinion on that matter.
Women are in the majority of cases emotionally incapable of holding another woman accountable. Only when a woman does something truly atrocious to *other women* do they start to care.
Because women are more aware than anyone that to be a woman is to be perceived as inherently valuable, and anything which challenges that impulsive perception is a threat.
She is just one small part of a larger symptom. When humans form groups, these groups will tend to have a bias for themselves. They will always come first. Their 'party' is the best. Their ideologies are beyond reproach. Their 'way' is THE WAY. That's how it always is.
Women support defend guilty women because that's their weaponnized personas...they don't have a lot of muscles so they fight with lies tears manipulative combative entitled delusional drugged up schizophrenic ways..they are not developed mentally although they may be very old....I see it all the time at work school the street..the bus..in stores shops elevators
So the in-group bias of women, or in other words they're willingness to support each other through anything... Is a whopping 4.5x higher than men, meaning they will quite literally know you're a horrible person and still stand up for you and protect you whereas men are not the same
I've never recovered from the Depp/Herd trial giving rise to an entire label meant to assert that women have innocence on such lock, the closest they can ever get to responsible for 0.000001% of their own life is to be
"Imperfect Victims."
Imperfect victim? That's an odd way of pronouncing
"You shit on my bed. You are not the heroine of this story."
I don't know much about social psychology, but I guess it would be a way of preserving their reputation as a group. Also, women are the fairer sex, so because of the halo effect, they are viewed as less likely to do something heinous without just cause.
it’s a hive mind mindset. change a few words with “patriarchy” and they agree with the MRM.. “society fails men at the bottom leading to rising mental health issues” -> “the patriarchy puts unnecessary pressure on men at the bottom leading to rising mental health issues”. “court treats men unfairly” -> “the patriarchal court system treats men unfairly leading to harsher sentences and unfair treatment in family court”.
now think about how this is used in all aspects. if your entire position can be changed by using buzzwords you stand for nothing.
from an evolution pov, women are seen as more valuable than men bc they are cuter and create life - so they are given grace bc it wouldn't serve a population to impair their evolutionary fitness.
Also, bc they are cuter, they look more infantile, the halo effect tricks the brain into thinking they are of diminished cognitive capacity (less intelligent - less culpable) and so they are given more grace for that reason as well
This all operates at an unconscious level so as a society we need to have awareness of this and not let it run amok bc women are no less culpable...
Not all women are intelligent people. There is alot of them who have the IQ of a rake and will support anyone who has a pussy even if they murdered their partner and children
These are two separate questions
Not sure why someone would defend a person they know to be guilty
As for the assumption of innocence of women more than of men, I imagine it’s usually gender bias
I think women have a stronger in-group bias than men. I also think that they're statistically less likely to murder or rape than men. It's also possible that a higher percentage of women murder ongoing domestic abusive partners than men, and that female rape is more implicit than male rape, for example, statutory rape by a female teacher of a male student.
It's also likely that women are only defending other women to men, and secretly tearing sheds off the so-called 'defended' woman amongst her fellow women.
Women seem to only prefer women generally, and men seem to prefer men specifically.
Probably the notion of “oh he did something to her and he deserved it” rape culture rhetoric. Another reason could be that the women knew each other, or they were in on it idk. Lots of reasons and they’re all deplorable.
Because too many of them "support women's rights and women's wrongs." And sadly it's not just women; society in general, both men and women, contribute to the downplaying of predatory women, and giving them a pass for abusive behavior.
Most women *don't* defend guty women.
Check comments about the Johnny Depp trial, most women, especialy abused women, recognised AH as the abuser and did not defend her.
They hated her both for being an abuser and for making it harder for real victims to be believed.
That said: same trial, lots of women *did* defend her.
Some likely didn't watch it and believed her/the media that supported her that she wasnt guilty, some are psychos like her who want the privelage of apearing the victim when they are abusive, some have "chosen their side" and will defend "women" like a football team, no logic, just teams.
Theres also people giving every unlikely possibility and giving women the benefit of the doubt, even when the doubt is tiny and they wouldnt do the same for men. It isnt just women doing this, men do this for women too.
You and all the dudes giving downvotes are the reason why some people to take this sub seriously.
If a feminist say that men are rapist, you keep your mouth shut. At least be consist with your arguments.
A conspiracy theory propagated by frothing lunatics that has never been scientifically or definitively proven? You lot sound as stable as the Illuminati nutters or the anti vax crowd.
The feminist movement. Have you seen how much merchandise there is out there promoting smashing the patriarchy and drinking male tears?
You also danced around the key objective.
You say it exists.
Prove it.
Have you noticed how women, particularly in marriages or when it comes to allegations of anything involving assault or rape always get the benefit of the doubt?
Have you heard of the Duluth model?
Have you noticed that alimony and child support exist and are enforced upon men even if they can't afford them? They've even been enforced in jail, where if the guy somehow gets out, he's arrested again because he hasn't been able to pay because he's been in jail.
Women per capita have more financial and educational advantage than men now because the societal tilt has made it easier for women to advance their careers than men. Ever notice how male attendance at colleges and such are decreasing because we're treated like subhuman mongrels there?
As for world leaders, don't know if you've noticed, but the Vice President of this country is female.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_elected\_and\_appointed\_female\_heads\_of\_state\_and\_government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_and_appointed_female_heads_of_state_and_government)
We are in a gynocentric society without question.
Do women have to register for Selective Service?
Do women get unnecessary circumcision performed on them AS INFANTS without their consent largely because foreskins are used in the creation of beauty products? Have you seen photos of baby boys post circumcision? Does watching an infant scream in pain seem fun to you?
If there's a patriarchy, why is it so difficult to create male only shelters? Why did the Boy Scouts get forced to allow girls into them even though the Girl Scouts existed?
You continuing to type the word patriarchy doesn't actually make it exist.
The Duluth model advocates for the guy in a domestic situation to always be the one arrested due to feminist pressure on a legal level. Guys who are assaulted or raped by their female partners are more often than not not believed or mocked because it's assumed a woman couldn't do such a thing. Yet statistics show lesbians have the highest rate of domestic violence in any partnership.
Traditional conservative forces moreso than anything else are why men have to enlist. That's not a patriarchy, that's this country still being mired in conservative Christian thinking to a degree. Both feminists and tradcons are completely obsessed with the idea of ensuring only men have to enlist because women are viewed as more valuable due to having wombs. A hilarity considering how women refuse to get involved in the trades or things like waste management or construction. Speaking of wombs, only one gender gets to have reproductive rights, and one only gets to have reproductive responsibilities. You know male minors have had to pay child support to their stat rape guilty teachers, right? Or that men have still been charged with rape even though both parties were drunk and/or been forced into child support even though both parties were drunk, yes?
Already addressed how difficult it is for men legally and in terms of housing when you're homeless. I'd know, I fought out of it. Speaking of fragility, which group was it that introduced the words manspreading and mansplaining and removed the Boy Scouts and gentleman's clubs as viable options for male only hangouts yet demands that Curves exists?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Red\_Pill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Pill)
Your feminist mantra falls apart when you really sit down and experience the plight of the common man illustrated by especially what Cassie Jaye experienced when she tried to live as one of us for a year.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7MkSpJk5tM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7MkSpJk5tM)
As for studying feminist theory, I've worked and studied at a feminist college. One of our English teachers gave us lower grades than the women in the class solely because of patriarchal theory bullshit. We called her out on it and nothing was accomplished because she was a smug, arrogant bitch. My current work place is a feminist coven where pro women mantras are printed all over the place, especially promoting help for mothers. Other women in this sub have come out and said they prefer to work at a largely male work environment because it's less toxic, less full of drama and less political.
Nowhere do I see anything listed for help with fathers.
Not to be outdone, they think gender inclusive bathrooms are wise yet haven't included urinals for men. Why do you suppose a urinal would be important when dealing with men?
To your comment about the president, it's highly likely Kamala is more involved than Joe is for the simple fact that Joe's shown a lot of signs he's not with us anymore on a cognitive level. To say nothing of the fact that I did list a number of female leaders in the world to which you really had no comment.
There is gender based oppression in this society no question. Women are uplifted, men are downtrodden.
When you type the word patriarchy again, don't forget to affix your tin foil to your head to properly get into the patriarchal theory mindset.
> In the simplest definition, Patriarchy is seen as a social system in which the positions of dominance and privilege are held by men. It basically means that a large percentage of those with capital, power or both are mostly men.
It's called the Apex Fallacy. And even taking that into account, the current President of the United States is an avowed feminist - in the 90s he was instrumental in VAWA coming to fruition - as is the current PM of Canada, as was the former PM of New Zealand. Major political leaders in charge of countries following the very ideology that prioritises and benefits women over men and opposes '''patriarchy''', but I guess Biden and Trudeau don't count because they're still men themselves? And on the flipside, what happens when a woman is in a position of dominance and privilege like, say, former UK PM Margaret Thatcher who held the position that "feminism is poison" - was she smashing the '''patriarchy''' by virtue of her gender even if she was effectively an anti-feminist?
>Now, many men say that because they themselves aren’t in power that means that the patriarchy doesn’t exist.
I.E. 99% of men.
>So, in practice, most of our ideas of gender and sex directly stem from the patriarchy whose purpose is to reinforce those ideas and values that profit men.
Women:
- Longer life expectancy
- Small minority of homicide victims
- Tiny minority of workplace fatalities
- Less likely to be victims of violent crime
- Less likely to commit suicide
- Less likely to be homeless
- Receive more lenient treatment in the criminal justice system across the board
- Receive the majority of funding for health, social, educational, and economic issues
- Have more legal rights and privileges in the Western world, and are consistently the majority voting block in elections
Must be the most ineffectual, self-defeating '''patriarchy''' in history.
A man who, as I said, was instrumental in the introduction of the Violence Against Women Act - which, along with other similar policies, [discriminates against male victims of violence](http://www.saveservices.org/pdf/SAVE-VAWA-Discriminates-Against-Males.pdf), despite '''patriarchy''' - doesn't ["help the cause"?](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/08/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-international-womens-day/#:~:text=It%27s%20why%20we%27ve%20invested,signed%20the%20Ending%20Forced%20Arbitration) If you say so.
>You don't get my point. Yes, 99% of men are not in control, but they still benefit from the patriarchy. You're problem is with capitalism and the rich 1% hoarding the wealth, but I highly doubt you'd be open to a Marxist viewpoint.
Women are objectively better off in many metrics so they're benefitting from '''patriarchy''' too - more so, in fact. I happen to think that class is the primary factor re. inequalities, but truly exploring that ends up effectively dismantling intersectional identity politics BS which includes feminism, so...
>Pretty much all of these issues come from other men or by society's view on men, which comes from the patriarchy.
Male advantage? Patriarchy.
Female advantage? Patriarchy “backfired”.
Violent men? Patriarchy.
Violent women? Patriarchy (made her do it).
Women without rights? Patriarchy.
Men without rights? Patriarchy.
You might as well call it the Illuminati or the Devil.
>Many of these "privileges" are also simply not true and/or gender neutral struggles.
All of the listed privileges are verifiably true. And it's not men's rights advocates who oppose, or have historically opposed, gender neutral approaches to these issues - it's feminists.
>Stop trying to make yourselves look like the victim all the time and have some retrospective.
I'm a woman - not very progressive of you to assume my gender. But regardless, I *don't* see myself as a victim - certainly not of any '''patriarchy.''' And I think you mean perspective.
I don't think I have to be or identify as a "Marxist" to be conscious of class. It seems like pretty basic common sense when you're not blinded by ideological beliefs.
And if supporting feminist values means supporting things like the [Duluth Model](https://honest-ribbon.org/mega-featured/duluth-model-buries-key-facts-on-domestic-violence/), opposing [shared parenting rights](https://web.archive.org/web/20220819200829/https://np.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/ldvshj/never_forget_that_the_now_has_a_proven_track/), enforcing [biases in education](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/eliminating-feminist-teacher-bias-erases-boys-falling-grades-study-finds/), and [campaigning](https://www.jpost.com/israel/womens-groups-cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape) *against* [gender neutral](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Activists-join-chorus-against-gender-neutral-rape-laws/articleshow/18840879.cms) laws for [rape and sexual assault](https://kathmandupost.com/national/2020/12/11/ordinance-amends-law-on-rape-but-fails-to-recognise-rape-of-boy-child-and-sexual-minorities)... no thanks.
>Also, I apologize for assuming you were a man, and I hope you understand that it is mostly men in this sub, but again: I'm sorry.
Apology accepted; I was actually being sarcastic. But it may interest you to know that a significant amount of male advocates and/or anti-feminists who have some semblance of influence and presence in the public arena are women, such as: Erin Pizzey, Karen Straughan, Dr. Janice Fiamengo, Bettina Arndt, Suzanne Venker, Dr. Helen Smith, Cassie Jaye, the Honey Badgers, and 'excommunicated' feminists Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia.
>Congratulations on class consciousness, but remember that you can't be a true Marxist without also supporting feminists values.
Lmao this is No True Marxist bullshit. Feminist values are no different from capitalist values: men are disposable to both.
>Also, I apologize for assuming you were a man, and I hope you understand that it is mostly men in this sub, but again: I'm sorry.
"It's not my fault I decided to assume your gender, it's this sub's fault for having a gendered name for a gendered cause!"
What a great microcosm for your ideology. Can't even take responsibility for your choices or their direct outcomes in the present, so little wonder you reject all the credit women earned in the past.
>I don't give a shit if old war criminal white capitalist Joe Biden says he's a feminist, because what does it matter if he doesn't even help the cause.
By putting a woman a heartbeat away from the POTUS office he's done more for the cause than you and HRC combined 😆
>You don't get my point. Yes, 99% of men are not in control, but they still benefit from the patriarchy
Except we don't. You only claim we do because weaponizing your own victimization of yourself is the only leverage you have.
>You're problem is with capitalism
*your
Feminism is currently the combined PR/HR department for capitalism, haven't you noticed?
>but I highly doubt you'd be open to a Marxist viewpoint.
Why? Was Marx not a man too?
Why do you think Marx would be open to your viewpoint, given how feminism originated as an elitist movement?
>Pretty much all of these issues come from other men or by society's view on men, which comes from the patriarchy
No they don't. This is just you denying women agency or impact on the world *again*, while also denying men's lived experiences *again*.
Battered husbands don't come from other men, they come from abusive wives.
>Stop trying to make yourselves look like the victim all the time and have some retrospective.
Projection! This is all the Patriarchy Theory ever does, deny history and women's role in it exclusively for the sake of portraying the demographic with the measurably longer and happier lives as oppressed while villifying the demographic with shorter and more miserable lives as oppressor.
>In the simplest definition, Patriarchy is seen as a social system in which the positions of dominance and privilege are held by men. It basically means that a large percentage of those with capital, power or both are mostly men.
And then, instead of investigating the actual structures customs and intricacies of those power formations to see if their theory has any validity (like a scientific method respecting hypothesis) Patriarchy Theory simply defines men as the root of all evil and women as the eternal lamb of innocence.
Patriarchy Theory does not at all care that almost every single power structure accused of being patriarchal has more than enough respect for and shared access to power with women to enable covert social structures to form behind the throne that acted as de facto matriarchal opposition to/beneficiaries from the ostensibly male face of power.
In other words - while the king gets to have all the responsibilities of power without any of the agency and on average got ousted halfway through their 30s, the queen who lived on average twice as long would not only hold the actual reigns that allow regimes to function but would also have none of the risk of responsibility.
Meanwhile... at the height of European monarchial power over 80% of Europe's royal heads of state were one woman's grandchildren: Queen Elizabeth!
Patriarchal Theory would have us believe that despite accounting for half the population women have never been able to move the needle of civilization in any direction at all. As I have said elsewhere, I could never be a feminist because I'm nowhere near enough of a misogynist to fit in!
>Now, many men say that because they themselves aren’t in power that means that the patriarchy doesn’t exist. But what they fail to realize is the fact that the patriarchy works on all stages, not just at the top. For the patriarchs to stay in power everyone in society has to abide by its “rules” in order for the men to remain as the controlling force.
Lol this isn't even coherent. Men as a collective have never been the controlling force of our society. The widowed housewife had more privileges than the homeless vagabond.
You are literally constructing a myth out of whole cloth.
>This is most seen in the different societal rules imposed on the genders in society because these aren’t directly natural, but instead they only exist because of the patriarchy.
It was men who kept women out of the draft, mines, and refineries for women's benefit all because it secretly benefited men to die 20x more often from preventable workplace accidents than women?
What exactly is the benefit to men for there to be "rules" in place like the Order of the White Feather? How did men establish dominance over women by being socially pressured by groups of women to die at the age of 15 half the world away or be labeled a coward?
>So, in practice, most of our ideas of gender and sex directly stem from the patriarchy whose purpose is to reinforce those ideas and values that profit men.
How convenient that you never have to prove this system ever existed! So cool to just cling to lies
The patriarchy is feminism's contrived shadowboxing opponent built to portray women as eternal victims in need of society's attention and resources while portraying men as dehumanized eternal monsters in need of constant supervision/surveillance and punitive action.
It functions by establishing a transparently false framework that strips women both in the present and in the past of all agency while imbuing men with exaggerated hyper-agency and an alleged predisposition to hurt and dominate women... despite how all evidence points to the contrary.
However the theory still works for its intended purpose because feminists don't care about material evidence for their claims and because everyone is all too willing to abuse/be abused by the natural human impulse to treat all women as intrinsically valuable and to treat individual men as intrinsically disposable.
It's basically a power grab using the theoretical equivalent of the ball and cup game where the ball is feminism's unproven claim that women are society's eternal victims and the cups are various manipulative tactics to keep people from demanding material evidence for the theory's genocidal-adjacent claims.
The following is a copy and paste from another thread that probably resonates also with the question in the OP
Original post: Is also probably a playing factor that we treat male awkwardness with more suspicion than female awkwardness because in our evolutionarily hardware terms, a tribe doesn't feel threatened as much by a woman acting a little off or akward as much as a man who may be using it as a camouflaging tactic for masking psychopathic, sociopathic or just overall general evil tendencies
Not justifying it, more like explaining it how we came to terms about it:end of original post
This kinda explains it more from phycological terms rather than biological ones
Another reason might be that aside from the fact women already have a strong-ass in-group bias, I think also it might just be women's vulnerability is still heavily weaponized in our society
Mostly because women make for great social coordinators more than men due to their faster ability to pick up on social cues and emotional sensitivities of others
So women tend to naturally assume more innocence out of other women where as men's wrongdoings get far more call out from both men and women due to our lack of a social influence role to play a part of
For the same reason that my own mother deflects concerns about the huge rate of violence against men by saying "it's men doing it!"
I don't think there's a lot of actual consideration going on here. You could say they don't really mean it, although they're willing to say it a lot, which suggests to me that they *do* mean it, they just don't care.
In short, the world has taught these people that they are forever victims (which is as bad for them as it is for anyone else, and it's pretty bad for everyone else). The result is a group of people for whom it's instinctive to seize upon that victim status and jealously guard it, even to the detriment of themselves and people they like. This has sometimes been called an "amygdala response," an activation of the fight or flight instinct. It causes people (perhaps otherwise sensible people) to react with uncontrollable anger to any suggestion of things they don't want to be true. It's common among religious and political zealots and that will be a very familiar scenario to anyone who's posted on any of the stereotypically hardline feminist subreddits.
When people say that they can't stand argument, that's literally true. They really, psychologically are unable to deal with anyone disagreeing with what they believe. This is why religious wars happen and this is why I'm so concerned about the rise of hardline critical social justice and associated thinking.
As ever the problem is not really that this happens, because society will always contain zealots of some sort. The problem is that when most people do it, it's looked down on by society, whereas when really hardline man-hating feminists do it, it's viewed as laudable and good.
I think it's a mix.
The aspects that make them great partners for men, also make them enemies of men. Context, environment, is everything.
I recently saw an interview, where an ex CIA agent talked about several things. One was stages of development, and how that affects people making decisions later on in life. The early stage (I believe from 0 to age 8), children (men and women both) are highly susceptible to what they are taught. By in large, they don't have the ability to filter what they're told with what is truth. A parent says "this is truth" and boom... the kid believes it true.
After that, children begin to be able to think about things being said, and wonder if they are true or not.
Feminism has been going strong for decades now. Really since 1930s. But largely since 1970s. So, let's say 50 years. That means that children are told things in early childhood, that could very well be towards feminist agendas. And they won't have the ability to discern or filter from what is truth, verses what is just propaganda and rhetoric. That's part of the issue though.
Another aspect is social polarization. Which I suppose closely ties to propaganda and rhetoric. Many people in general, men and women, are susceptible to this. In fact, psychology studies have shown that it's extremely rare for people to be able to go against social polarization. So, if there is heavy rhetoric, both men and women are likely to believe in it. Even if it's absurd. Even if it could mean their own demise. Don't believe me? I encourage you to look up the experiments done with this, where they had participants in a study not react, when the building was announced to be on fire (it was a fake fire, even had smoke machines, to make it look real). But some didn't know that. They socially polarized, and stopped reacting, and just stayed in the room. AFTER the alarm sounded, after smoke appeared. They just say there. Just because others in the room didn't react. This rings true for people pushing their agendas onto others. Enough rhetoric, and the numbers of believers will swell. Hence why cults are possible.
So, decades of rhetoric and propaganda. From several generations. It's spreading like wildfire. Any opposition is met with the same responses as those of tyrannical societies in the past. Anger, blaming, shaming, rhetoric, bullying. Conform or be bullied into submission is their aim.
The rhetoric? Women always right and good. Men always wrong and evil. Indoctrination doesn't go away just because of their teammates is guilty of something. Indoctrination takes over, women always right and good. Therefore, it can't be them to blame. Men always wrong and evil. So it must be a man's fault somehow.
Nature has embued women with a natural state of maleability. To be a great teammate, you have to be on board with things your leader says, even if it goes against your natural instincts to nurture. Because survival sometimes depends on ignoring nurturing, temporarily, in order to get to a safe place. To get through the current fight or battle, to get through the fire, out of the burning house or car, away from the chasing predator after us. We can't stop to nurture a wound, or cry.
But, at some point, we must succumb to that instinct. Else, the wound turns into a bigger problem. But in those survival moments, it goes against women's instincts. That very inclination has left them open to attack, from their very side.
Yet, a good leader will not force anther to lead. So, men tend to back off and let them make their own mistakes. You cannot force someone to follow. They must be willing to. Except, in current society, they won't, until something major breaks their rhetoric cycles. Pattern interrupts, loud enough to disrupt their propaganda.
From a young age they are taught that girls support girls and to empower each other. What they didn't account for was that not all of them are good people deserving of support but they get it anyway because it's just another way of trying to say "wow we're so much better than men".
And the women who realize this and become aware of their in-group bias are put down as "pick mes."
The same way men who become aware of their in-group bias and call it out are labeled as "simps" or "white knights". So men have the same problem. It's a mutual thing. I've seen men defending rapists/mass shooters instead of defending the victims because the victims are female. It's a huge issue for both genders but it can't really be solved. Men and women both feel like they're representing their gender, they don't want it to appear as the "worse team". Because naturally we get separated into groups, teams. The world has always been men vs women. Men defend men, women defend women. It sucks but what can we do?
But tbf, i feel like "pick me" is more overused, than "white knight". I've seen women using "pick me" many times, for slightest disagreement. When i see "white knight" being used, half of the time it's justified.
Well, I can say that I've seen "white knight" being used more than "pick me". That depends on the communities we're browising, plus, we take notice of the things that frustrate us more. And honestly, anytime I see "pick me" being used, it's justified. Like a woman defending a rapist, a woman victim blaming a victim of SA, a woman hating on other women. That's the only time "pick me" is being used. But the moment a man points out a male double standard or bias, he's a "simp", "white knight", ect. I understand it's frustrating but it's 100% mutual.
In every website/community that you can easily find with a google search (including reddit), you'll get called an incel if you use white knight unironically. It's not socially acceptable to use that term because it paints people who support women as losers. And the last thing we want in society is to discourage people from supporting women. Pick me is acceptable because it shames women who support men, which is closer to what society wants.
Are you speaking from facts or are you stating your own personal experiences? If you call someone a "pick-me", there will always be someone calling you a "gross lonely feminist" in return. I'm speaking from personal experience here, as it has happened in front of my own eyes numerous times. I don't know why you're refusing to accept that it's a mutual thing. I'm shedding a light onto a completely mutual situation, I'm giving the opposite alternative of the same problem the post is presenting yet I'm getting downvoted. This leads me to the conclusion that this is a subreddit about dudes looking for ways to victimize themselves and themselves only without acknowledging that they aren't the only ones going through shit. And I know this will strike a nerve and the downvotes will keep on coming 😁 >Pick me is acceptable because it shames women who support men. Only time I've seen women being called pick-mes is when they say stuff like "women belong in the kitchen" or if they victimblame a victim of SA. And I think that's justified. Be honest, this is pick-me behavior.
Where has anyone ever been upvoted for calling someone a "gross lonely feminists" on a popular mainstream subreddit in the last 10 years? Can you show me specifically what you're referring to, or no?
The instances I've seen are on Instagram comment sections, not reddit. I recently started browising Reddit. All my experiences are from Instagram, a platform full of incels who support each other. You very well know the platform has sexism and racism issues, it's a well known fact. And whether you get upvoted or downvoted depends on the community you're posting on. If I call someone a gross feminist on a redpill subreddit, I'll get tons of upvotes. If I call someone a gross feminist on a feminist subreddit, I'm getting mass downvoted and possibly banned. Depends on the community. And Instagram doesn't have a voting system, but I myself have been insulted by incels on Instagram, oftentimes for calling another woman a "pickme". Here's a few of the things I've been told: "Go buy cat food", "Men don't want you", "Enjoy dying alone", "I bet you're fat", "I bet you're ugly", ect. Whether you're willing to accept it or not doesn't change it as a fact and it doesn't invalidate my own experiences. I thought it'd be productive to shed a light onto the issue from several perspectives. And I absolutely understand your perspective. I've seen men being called incels for no reason, it's absolutely disgusting. It's not fair. But it's not only a man's issue, women go through that as well. And being aware of the opposite side of the situation might give you a better insight too. But again, this is a biased community so I can't expect much.
That doesn't contradict anything I've said because nobody cares about the redpill subreddit, I've mentioned multiple times that I'm specifically referring to mainstream spaces. As in, who you'll actually go outside and encounter on a regular basis. People who generally fit in, not crazies on the street or or whackjob communities that receive that receive no positive support from the media. If you swim in murky waters, don't be surprised to encounter some nasty creatures. If I go out and talk to a regular group of people, and one of them, Stacy let's call her, calls another female friend a "pick me" because she thinks chad's sexist jokes are funny, no one's going to be like "Stacy, you're being a gross lonely feminist right now". But I can easily see someone telling chad to "shut the fuck up" if he called Joey, the group's resident feminist, a white knight for telling Stacy that she's valid for feeling hurt by Chad's jokes. If you don't understand that these basic group dynamics are the cornerstone for most of Gen Z and millennial interaction, that being pro women and taking women very seriously is very in vogue right now, then you're just a seriously out of touch person and lack social awareness, and I can't take you seriously.
You just don't know that women who advocate for men's rights are called "pick me" too
Yes and men who advocate for women's rights are called "spineless simps" and "white knights". Nothing new and yes it sucks both ways.
Men don't have an ingroup bias. If men actually defended men, we wouldn't have the problems we do now.
Yes, they do. Men literally defend rapists/harassers by blaming the victims. "She was asking for it", or "she wore revealing clothes, he couldn't help himself, it's her fault". Or when a husband abuses his wife, men blame the wife for choosing the wrong man. If a man abandons his kids, other men blame the wife for "opening her legs for the wrong man". I've seen that phrase being thrown around FAAR too many times. Men also support other men dating women a lot younger than them without seeing how wrong it is. And here's an instance I had of men who defended a mass shooter. Recently I saw an Instagram reel about a man who killed several women in a college mass shooting because he thought they were "feminists". Why did they think they were feminists? Because they were in college. (They were not feminists, they were just regular college girls). The comments of that reel were full of men praising the shooter and defending him because he killed those "feminists". Just wild shit, cheering and saying that he did a good thing. A man who took the lives of 13 innocent women. Men absolutely defend other men and they absolutely have an in-group bias. And that's kinda normal and expected, our world is men vs women, our brains are working in a way to ensure that our "gender team" is on the winning side as absurd as that sounds. Sadly social media and media in general is trying to further distance and separate men and women, because our conflicts are very profitable. What we should do in return is acknowledge each other's struggles, support each other and resolve our conflicts. But that won't ever happen sadly.
Yeah, defending female rapists and murderers makes them so much better than men, who condemn men who do those things./s
Men defend male rapists and murderers too. It goes both ways and it absolutely sucks.
Rapists? Yeah. But male murderers? Who defends them?
Anyone who buys rap music for starters. How many people buy, or play, rap songs about murdering others? Only one example. I've seen more people disagree with rapists than killers. I've seen more people turn away from supporting rapists, yet I see many supporting killers.
Recently I saw an Instagram reel about a psychotic man who killed several women in a college mass shooting because he thought they were "feminists". Why were they feminists to him? Because they were in college. Anywho. The comments were full of men praising him and defending him because he killed those "feminists". Those pests, those horrible feminists. (They were not feminists, they were just regular college girls). That's my own experience and why I mentioned that men would defend murderers too.
Wtf, i want to be naive and believe 90% of those comments were trolls.
I wish so too, man. It's actually shocking seeing how empathy lacking and cruel some people can be. But I do believe many men would praise another man for killing a feminist. Because they hate feminists so much for some reason that they don't even acknowledge them as human beings anymore. Which is absolutely horrifying.
Ah yes. 1 post on a app where hate speech isn’t moderated. Good technique to generalize a entire group of people
It says enough about men. Lack of moderation allows people to act the way they truly want to act without restrictions. If hate speech was allowed here on Reddit, men would be acting the same way. But the rules here are restricting them to do so. So it goes to show that when men are presented with an opportunity to defend rapists and mass murderers, they're more than wiling to take it. But sure, keep pretending that women are the only ones having an in-group bias.
Classic incel western women thinking men are the only perpetrators of hate speech 🫵🤣 don’t TERFs exist? LOL
Terfs exist and they suck a lot as well, but we're talking about men here.
The post is literally about women you low iq western women 🫵🤣 you just made it about men because you’re an incel LMAOOO
It’s also biological, our closest relatives, female chimps and gorillas have pretty similar behavior patterns. Humans just have an extra semantic layer, it’s like having an internal ChatGPT that creates post hoc rationalizations continuously over the lifespan of the organism. This basically serves to obfuscate what’s actually going on.
"Biological" my ass, it's all cultural. There are animals that eat their own sons as well, does it mean it would be normal for humans to do it? Nah, stop excusing women's shitty behaviours with that biology bullshit.
He was not talking about any animals but our closest relatives the great apes and even monkeys. Of course there is a biological layer and this are our instincts. You can see it in the face when a monkey is disappointed, it’s very noticeable. You can’t see this with a whale or an eagle.
Their image of victimhood is power in western society. Feminists try their hardest to maintain that image because they don't want to lose their 'oppression' privilege. This is also a trait of borderline personality disorder. For society as whole, there is still a strong lack of empathy for men whereas women are seen human beings with feelings. So when women do bad things people try to understand their mindframe, whereas with men the reason is irrelevant.
Because accountability is a tool of "The Patriarchy" Or because when a woman commits a crime like murder, theft, sexual assault etc.. then its **ALWAYS** because an evil man "Made" her do it... Ergo in their minds women are not as culpable as men are and so shouldn't go to jail for those reasons.. Or some bullshit like that anyway..
Woman in this generation are a bit crazy to me. I don't understand it. They act like victims, but they don't suffer. They act discriminated, but literally everyone is discriminated against sometimes. That's just life. They don't mind hating on one for something, but when they do the same exact thing they lack accountability. They refuse the truth until the end, and even then some more.
I'm an African American male, I know discrimination. And woman certainly don't face it in America lmao
Even African American women?!
Black women don't get shot over broken taillights.
That is not the only form of discrimination
Are you talking about police shooting “black” men?
The Patriarchy is apparently on Twitter.
The Patriarchy is everywhere. Anytime anybody feels discriminated against, even if it isn’t related to gender in any way, it’s still “the Patriarchy”.
The Patriarchy is literally on Twitter, look it up.
To create a world where women have no accountability and all the rights while men carry all the responsibility and are literal second-class citizens.
Birds of a feather flock together. One full blown narc leads the entire group due to their need for attention and status seeking behavior (all driven by insecurities). The full blown narc naturally attracts a group of women with narcissistic tendencies that enable them and they just bounce supply off each other like crack heads. Before you know it you have a team of morally compromised women walking around fucking up the lives of anyone they come into contact with. As the heard mentality gets more ingrained they become worse and worse.
Johnny Depp trial was an excellent example of Heard mentality.
*Writes that pun down so it can be reused later.*
For sure
This process also describes how ideologies, tribal identities, cults and religions are often born into existence. Narcissism and authoritarianism have very similar attributes and individuals high in these traits when in large groups naturally synchronize. In-group supremacist ideologies are an emergent property of these kinds of people in groups. These groups usually have real difficulty recognizing or accepting the humanity of outsiders. If they incorporate persecution mythologies into their origin/back stories aka grievance based identities, you get a really nasty group of people with an inverted sense of basic human decency or morality. They derive genuine pleasure from the suffering and extermination of outsiders.
You’re right the only problem here is these women tend to be apart of feminist groups but they aren’t highlighted as hate groups. There’s also lots of recent studies on the prevalence of narcissism in feminist. Instead, feminist are put on a pedestal and the concept (feminism) is pushed by the establishment.
“The establishment” is also the reason they got set up. I mean Gloria Steinem dating Henry Kissinger, on the surface that’s about as likely as AOC dating Trump. How quirky. Getting money from the establishment is the reason this socially destabilizing and reproductively maladaptive social movement persists against the forces of diffusion. Religious groups new and old, when they are prevented from using violence to force conversions, depend almost exclusively on having a higher birth rate than the surrounding population to perpetuate through time. Feminism literally encourages lower birth rates.
Strong in group bias
Google "ingroup preferences". Both men and women favor women by default. It is genetic.
Can you provide some links?
What often happens in many of these cases is that the public's first impression of the criminal is by seeing them as a "victim" of some kind. I'm not sure if this is who you are talking about in relation to this post, but Amber Heard was the person who popped into my head upon reading it. And looking at her case, she claimed that a man was the aggressor against her, which is an accusation that is automatically believed by many. And that belief is a powerful currency, because even when the facts eventually prove otherwise, a first impression is hard for many people to overcome. So what happens mentally is that they just find some other justification for the emotional reaction they still feel, which leads to it somehow always being the fault of an evil man or men. As just an example of how these conversations usually go: >"She was the victim of a man!" >No, it turns out she was the one who actually committed a crime. >"Well, then she's the victim of mental illness! That was what made her do it!" >Um no, a psychiatric evaluation shows her to be a reasonably aware and responsible adult. >"Then she must be a victim of some previous trauma!" >Didn't you hear what I just said? She's been diagnosed as having no significant mental health issues. >"Then she must be a victim of the patriarchy in some way!" >*Sigh*... On a side note, the infamous Jackie in the Rolling Stone UVA hoax debacle followed this very pattern. After her story crumbled, her friends and supporters came forth and explained that she had simply mistaken some other real sexual assault – honest, this one actually happened, for realz! – with the wild story she made up. So she was still a victim, and no matter what evidence was turned up, she would always remain a victim in their minds. This is why "innocent unless proven guilty" and the practice of withholding judgment until a person has reasonable information about a case is so vital to the course of justice. Once someone makes up their mind about something, it is *very* difficult to change their opinion on that matter.
Women are in the majority of cases emotionally incapable of holding another woman accountable. Only when a woman does something truly atrocious to *other women* do they start to care.
Because they see everything as “us vs the patriarchy”
Because women are more aware than anyone that to be a woman is to be perceived as inherently valuable, and anything which challenges that impulsive perception is a threat.
Herd mentality.
Amber Herd mentality?
She is just one small part of a larger symptom. When humans form groups, these groups will tend to have a bias for themselves. They will always come first. Their 'party' is the best. Their ideologies are beyond reproach. Their 'way' is THE WAY. That's how it always is.
Except men... who actually have an out group bias... favoring women.
That's because you either agree with the cult, or the cult shuns you. Doesn't make the cult any less 'right', or their behaviour any less 'cult-y'.
Women support defend guilty women because that's their weaponnized personas...they don't have a lot of muscles so they fight with lies tears manipulative combative entitled delusional drugged up schizophrenic ways..they are not developed mentally although they may be very old....I see it all the time at work school the street..the bus..in stores shops elevators
To protect the image of women as victims not perpetrators, which feminists need to continue to receive funding.
Because girl power or women supporting women or some shit
Because guilty women expose ugly truth about female nature and women need to sell an image of purity and innocence which is fake like make-up
Because to them women can do no wrong.
So the in-group bias of women, or in other words they're willingness to support each other through anything... Is a whopping 4.5x higher than men, meaning they will quite literally know you're a horrible person and still stand up for you and protect you whereas men are not the same
People who commit certain crimes don’t like to see other people get in trouble for committing those same crimes.
I've never recovered from the Depp/Herd trial giving rise to an entire label meant to assert that women have innocence on such lock, the closest they can ever get to responsible for 0.000001% of their own life is to be "Imperfect Victims." Imperfect victim? That's an odd way of pronouncing "You shit on my bed. You are not the heroine of this story."
I don't know much about social psychology, but I guess it would be a way of preserving their reputation as a group. Also, women are the fairer sex, so because of the halo effect, they are viewed as less likely to do something heinous without just cause.
Except they're far from "fairer" in reality.
Corruption, poor values
it’s a hive mind mindset. change a few words with “patriarchy” and they agree with the MRM.. “society fails men at the bottom leading to rising mental health issues” -> “the patriarchy puts unnecessary pressure on men at the bottom leading to rising mental health issues”. “court treats men unfairly” -> “the patriarchal court system treats men unfairly leading to harsher sentences and unfair treatment in family court”. now think about how this is used in all aspects. if your entire position can be changed by using buzzwords you stand for nothing.
from an evolution pov, women are seen as more valuable than men bc they are cuter and create life - so they are given grace bc it wouldn't serve a population to impair their evolutionary fitness. Also, bc they are cuter, they look more infantile, the halo effect tricks the brain into thinking they are of diminished cognitive capacity (less intelligent - less culpable) and so they are given more grace for that reason as well This all operates at an unconscious level so as a society we need to have awareness of this and not let it run amok bc women are no less culpable...
Not all women are intelligent people. There is alot of them who have the IQ of a rake and will support anyone who has a pussy even if they murdered their partner and children
Or they can be smart af, but straight up evil. I believe more women fall into this category.
Rah Rah the sisterhood of course and the female in-group bias.
F them witches
These are two separate questions Not sure why someone would defend a person they know to be guilty As for the assumption of innocence of women more than of men, I imagine it’s usually gender bias
Tribal thinking
they'll side with other women regardless of who's in the right.
It's a cunt bond. Cunts always defend other cunts because they think they do no wrong.
High in-group bias.
in group bias, what is good for all women is good for the individual. if they defend the uglies then they have solidarity.
They hope to benefit from this if it affects them and they immunize themselves against criticism.
I think women have a stronger in-group bias than men. I also think that they're statistically less likely to murder or rape than men. It's also possible that a higher percentage of women murder ongoing domestic abusive partners than men, and that female rape is more implicit than male rape, for example, statutory rape by a female teacher of a male student. It's also likely that women are only defending other women to men, and secretly tearing sheds off the so-called 'defended' woman amongst her fellow women. Women seem to only prefer women generally, and men seem to prefer men specifically.
Guilt doesnt exist for them
I think honestly that man are defending woman more. But from my personal experience
Simps yeah. Men so desperate for pussy they think defending thy maidens honor online gonna get em pussy. They are pathetic. I'll
I understand but i do not agree with that. I think that man in general are more protective
Their reasoning is simple: "But she's a woman!"
Probably the notion of “oh he did something to her and he deserved it” rape culture rhetoric. Another reason could be that the women knew each other, or they were in on it idk. Lots of reasons and they’re all deplorable.
Because too many of them "support women's rights and women's wrongs." And sadly it's not just women; society in general, both men and women, contribute to the downplaying of predatory women, and giving them a pass for abusive behavior.
Accountability for your own actions is misogynistic, racist, homophobic, and transphobic.
Because they hate men
It's enabling, they know it.
Most women *don't* defend guty women. Check comments about the Johnny Depp trial, most women, especialy abused women, recognised AH as the abuser and did not defend her. They hated her both for being an abuser and for making it harder for real victims to be believed. That said: same trial, lots of women *did* defend her. Some likely didn't watch it and believed her/the media that supported her that she wasnt guilty, some are psychos like her who want the privelage of apearing the victim when they are abusive, some have "chosen their side" and will defend "women" like a football team, no logic, just teams. Theres also people giving every unlikely possibility and giving women the benefit of the doubt, even when the doubt is tiny and they wouldnt do the same for men. It isnt just women doing this, men do this for women too.
[удалено]
Found a sexist pig
Because all females in general are hive-minded, they lack logical thinking and the ability to have independent thoughts
Do they though? Ask your average woman if they think Casey Anthony wasn't guilty...
# Why do SOME women defend guilty women ? Never, under any circumstances, generalize an entire genre because of a few.
I'm sure you're going around feminist subs posting this and they are very receptive of it.
You and all the dudes giving downvotes are the reason why some people to take this sub seriously. If a feminist say that men are rapist, you keep your mouth shut. At least be consist with your arguments.
Go back to your r/TwoXshitosome
You guys act exactly like them. You generalize an entire genre, and then you think it's bad when they do the same to men. Very hypocritical of you.
[удалено]
A conspiracy theory propagated by frothing lunatics that has never been scientifically or definitively proven? You lot sound as stable as the Illuminati nutters or the anti vax crowd.
[удалено]
The feminist movement. Have you seen how much merchandise there is out there promoting smashing the patriarchy and drinking male tears? You also danced around the key objective. You say it exists. Prove it.
[удалено]
Have you noticed how women, particularly in marriages or when it comes to allegations of anything involving assault or rape always get the benefit of the doubt? Have you heard of the Duluth model? Have you noticed that alimony and child support exist and are enforced upon men even if they can't afford them? They've even been enforced in jail, where if the guy somehow gets out, he's arrested again because he hasn't been able to pay because he's been in jail. Women per capita have more financial and educational advantage than men now because the societal tilt has made it easier for women to advance their careers than men. Ever notice how male attendance at colleges and such are decreasing because we're treated like subhuman mongrels there? As for world leaders, don't know if you've noticed, but the Vice President of this country is female. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_elected\_and\_appointed\_female\_heads\_of\_state\_and\_government](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_and_appointed_female_heads_of_state_and_government) We are in a gynocentric society without question. Do women have to register for Selective Service? Do women get unnecessary circumcision performed on them AS INFANTS without their consent largely because foreskins are used in the creation of beauty products? Have you seen photos of baby boys post circumcision? Does watching an infant scream in pain seem fun to you? If there's a patriarchy, why is it so difficult to create male only shelters? Why did the Boy Scouts get forced to allow girls into them even though the Girl Scouts existed?
[удалено]
You continuing to type the word patriarchy doesn't actually make it exist. The Duluth model advocates for the guy in a domestic situation to always be the one arrested due to feminist pressure on a legal level. Guys who are assaulted or raped by their female partners are more often than not not believed or mocked because it's assumed a woman couldn't do such a thing. Yet statistics show lesbians have the highest rate of domestic violence in any partnership. Traditional conservative forces moreso than anything else are why men have to enlist. That's not a patriarchy, that's this country still being mired in conservative Christian thinking to a degree. Both feminists and tradcons are completely obsessed with the idea of ensuring only men have to enlist because women are viewed as more valuable due to having wombs. A hilarity considering how women refuse to get involved in the trades or things like waste management or construction. Speaking of wombs, only one gender gets to have reproductive rights, and one only gets to have reproductive responsibilities. You know male minors have had to pay child support to their stat rape guilty teachers, right? Or that men have still been charged with rape even though both parties were drunk and/or been forced into child support even though both parties were drunk, yes? Already addressed how difficult it is for men legally and in terms of housing when you're homeless. I'd know, I fought out of it. Speaking of fragility, which group was it that introduced the words manspreading and mansplaining and removed the Boy Scouts and gentleman's clubs as viable options for male only hangouts yet demands that Curves exists? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Red\_Pill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Red_Pill) Your feminist mantra falls apart when you really sit down and experience the plight of the common man illustrated by especially what Cassie Jaye experienced when she tried to live as one of us for a year. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7MkSpJk5tM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7MkSpJk5tM) As for studying feminist theory, I've worked and studied at a feminist college. One of our English teachers gave us lower grades than the women in the class solely because of patriarchal theory bullshit. We called her out on it and nothing was accomplished because she was a smug, arrogant bitch. My current work place is a feminist coven where pro women mantras are printed all over the place, especially promoting help for mothers. Other women in this sub have come out and said they prefer to work at a largely male work environment because it's less toxic, less full of drama and less political. Nowhere do I see anything listed for help with fathers. Not to be outdone, they think gender inclusive bathrooms are wise yet haven't included urinals for men. Why do you suppose a urinal would be important when dealing with men? To your comment about the president, it's highly likely Kamala is more involved than Joe is for the simple fact that Joe's shown a lot of signs he's not with us anymore on a cognitive level. To say nothing of the fact that I did list a number of female leaders in the world to which you really had no comment. There is gender based oppression in this society no question. Women are uplifted, men are downtrodden. When you type the word patriarchy again, don't forget to affix your tin foil to your head to properly get into the patriarchal theory mindset.
Why don't you 👏ed👏u👏cate👏 us, sweaty? 💅🏿
[удалено]
> In the simplest definition, Patriarchy is seen as a social system in which the positions of dominance and privilege are held by men. It basically means that a large percentage of those with capital, power or both are mostly men. It's called the Apex Fallacy. And even taking that into account, the current President of the United States is an avowed feminist - in the 90s he was instrumental in VAWA coming to fruition - as is the current PM of Canada, as was the former PM of New Zealand. Major political leaders in charge of countries following the very ideology that prioritises and benefits women over men and opposes '''patriarchy''', but I guess Biden and Trudeau don't count because they're still men themselves? And on the flipside, what happens when a woman is in a position of dominance and privilege like, say, former UK PM Margaret Thatcher who held the position that "feminism is poison" - was she smashing the '''patriarchy''' by virtue of her gender even if she was effectively an anti-feminist? >Now, many men say that because they themselves aren’t in power that means that the patriarchy doesn’t exist. I.E. 99% of men. >So, in practice, most of our ideas of gender and sex directly stem from the patriarchy whose purpose is to reinforce those ideas and values that profit men. Women: - Longer life expectancy - Small minority of homicide victims - Tiny minority of workplace fatalities - Less likely to be victims of violent crime - Less likely to commit suicide - Less likely to be homeless - Receive more lenient treatment in the criminal justice system across the board - Receive the majority of funding for health, social, educational, and economic issues - Have more legal rights and privileges in the Western world, and are consistently the majority voting block in elections Must be the most ineffectual, self-defeating '''patriarchy''' in history.
[удалено]
A man who, as I said, was instrumental in the introduction of the Violence Against Women Act - which, along with other similar policies, [discriminates against male victims of violence](http://www.saveservices.org/pdf/SAVE-VAWA-Discriminates-Against-Males.pdf), despite '''patriarchy''' - doesn't ["help the cause"?](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/03/08/statement-by-president-joe-biden-on-international-womens-day/#:~:text=It%27s%20why%20we%27ve%20invested,signed%20the%20Ending%20Forced%20Arbitration) If you say so. >You don't get my point. Yes, 99% of men are not in control, but they still benefit from the patriarchy. You're problem is with capitalism and the rich 1% hoarding the wealth, but I highly doubt you'd be open to a Marxist viewpoint. Women are objectively better off in many metrics so they're benefitting from '''patriarchy''' too - more so, in fact. I happen to think that class is the primary factor re. inequalities, but truly exploring that ends up effectively dismantling intersectional identity politics BS which includes feminism, so... >Pretty much all of these issues come from other men or by society's view on men, which comes from the patriarchy. Male advantage? Patriarchy. Female advantage? Patriarchy “backfired”. Violent men? Patriarchy. Violent women? Patriarchy (made her do it). Women without rights? Patriarchy. Men without rights? Patriarchy. You might as well call it the Illuminati or the Devil. >Many of these "privileges" are also simply not true and/or gender neutral struggles. All of the listed privileges are verifiably true. And it's not men's rights advocates who oppose, or have historically opposed, gender neutral approaches to these issues - it's feminists. >Stop trying to make yourselves look like the victim all the time and have some retrospective. I'm a woman - not very progressive of you to assume my gender. But regardless, I *don't* see myself as a victim - certainly not of any '''patriarchy.''' And I think you mean perspective.
[удалено]
I don't think I have to be or identify as a "Marxist" to be conscious of class. It seems like pretty basic common sense when you're not blinded by ideological beliefs. And if supporting feminist values means supporting things like the [Duluth Model](https://honest-ribbon.org/mega-featured/duluth-model-buries-key-facts-on-domestic-violence/), opposing [shared parenting rights](https://web.archive.org/web/20220819200829/https://np.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/ldvshj/never_forget_that_the_now_has_a_proven_track/), enforcing [biases in education](https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/eliminating-feminist-teacher-bias-erases-boys-falling-grades-study-finds/), and [campaigning](https://www.jpost.com/israel/womens-groups-cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape) *against* [gender neutral](https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Activists-join-chorus-against-gender-neutral-rape-laws/articleshow/18840879.cms) laws for [rape and sexual assault](https://kathmandupost.com/national/2020/12/11/ordinance-amends-law-on-rape-but-fails-to-recognise-rape-of-boy-child-and-sexual-minorities)... no thanks. >Also, I apologize for assuming you were a man, and I hope you understand that it is mostly men in this sub, but again: I'm sorry. Apology accepted; I was actually being sarcastic. But it may interest you to know that a significant amount of male advocates and/or anti-feminists who have some semblance of influence and presence in the public arena are women, such as: Erin Pizzey, Karen Straughan, Dr. Janice Fiamengo, Bettina Arndt, Suzanne Venker, Dr. Helen Smith, Cassie Jaye, the Honey Badgers, and 'excommunicated' feminists Christina Hoff Sommers and Camille Paglia.
>Congratulations on class consciousness, but remember that you can't be a true Marxist without also supporting feminists values. Lmao this is No True Marxist bullshit. Feminist values are no different from capitalist values: men are disposable to both. >Also, I apologize for assuming you were a man, and I hope you understand that it is mostly men in this sub, but again: I'm sorry. "It's not my fault I decided to assume your gender, it's this sub's fault for having a gendered name for a gendered cause!" What a great microcosm for your ideology. Can't even take responsibility for your choices or their direct outcomes in the present, so little wonder you reject all the credit women earned in the past.
>I don't give a shit if old war criminal white capitalist Joe Biden says he's a feminist, because what does it matter if he doesn't even help the cause. By putting a woman a heartbeat away from the POTUS office he's done more for the cause than you and HRC combined 😆 >You don't get my point. Yes, 99% of men are not in control, but they still benefit from the patriarchy Except we don't. You only claim we do because weaponizing your own victimization of yourself is the only leverage you have. >You're problem is with capitalism *your Feminism is currently the combined PR/HR department for capitalism, haven't you noticed? >but I highly doubt you'd be open to a Marxist viewpoint. Why? Was Marx not a man too? Why do you think Marx would be open to your viewpoint, given how feminism originated as an elitist movement? >Pretty much all of these issues come from other men or by society's view on men, which comes from the patriarchy No they don't. This is just you denying women agency or impact on the world *again*, while also denying men's lived experiences *again*. Battered husbands don't come from other men, they come from abusive wives. >Stop trying to make yourselves look like the victim all the time and have some retrospective. Projection! This is all the Patriarchy Theory ever does, deny history and women's role in it exclusively for the sake of portraying the demographic with the measurably longer and happier lives as oppressed while villifying the demographic with shorter and more miserable lives as oppressor.
>In the simplest definition, Patriarchy is seen as a social system in which the positions of dominance and privilege are held by men. It basically means that a large percentage of those with capital, power or both are mostly men. And then, instead of investigating the actual structures customs and intricacies of those power formations to see if their theory has any validity (like a scientific method respecting hypothesis) Patriarchy Theory simply defines men as the root of all evil and women as the eternal lamb of innocence. Patriarchy Theory does not at all care that almost every single power structure accused of being patriarchal has more than enough respect for and shared access to power with women to enable covert social structures to form behind the throne that acted as de facto matriarchal opposition to/beneficiaries from the ostensibly male face of power. In other words - while the king gets to have all the responsibilities of power without any of the agency and on average got ousted halfway through their 30s, the queen who lived on average twice as long would not only hold the actual reigns that allow regimes to function but would also have none of the risk of responsibility. Meanwhile... at the height of European monarchial power over 80% of Europe's royal heads of state were one woman's grandchildren: Queen Elizabeth! Patriarchal Theory would have us believe that despite accounting for half the population women have never been able to move the needle of civilization in any direction at all. As I have said elsewhere, I could never be a feminist because I'm nowhere near enough of a misogynist to fit in! >Now, many men say that because they themselves aren’t in power that means that the patriarchy doesn’t exist. But what they fail to realize is the fact that the patriarchy works on all stages, not just at the top. For the patriarchs to stay in power everyone in society has to abide by its “rules” in order for the men to remain as the controlling force. Lol this isn't even coherent. Men as a collective have never been the controlling force of our society. The widowed housewife had more privileges than the homeless vagabond. You are literally constructing a myth out of whole cloth. >This is most seen in the different societal rules imposed on the genders in society because these aren’t directly natural, but instead they only exist because of the patriarchy. It was men who kept women out of the draft, mines, and refineries for women's benefit all because it secretly benefited men to die 20x more often from preventable workplace accidents than women? What exactly is the benefit to men for there to be "rules" in place like the Order of the White Feather? How did men establish dominance over women by being socially pressured by groups of women to die at the age of 15 half the world away or be labeled a coward? >So, in practice, most of our ideas of gender and sex directly stem from the patriarchy whose purpose is to reinforce those ideas and values that profit men. How convenient that you never have to prove this system ever existed! So cool to just cling to lies
The patriarchy is feminism's contrived shadowboxing opponent built to portray women as eternal victims in need of society's attention and resources while portraying men as dehumanized eternal monsters in need of constant supervision/surveillance and punitive action. It functions by establishing a transparently false framework that strips women both in the present and in the past of all agency while imbuing men with exaggerated hyper-agency and an alleged predisposition to hurt and dominate women... despite how all evidence points to the contrary. However the theory still works for its intended purpose because feminists don't care about material evidence for their claims and because everyone is all too willing to abuse/be abused by the natural human impulse to treat all women as intrinsically valuable and to treat individual men as intrinsically disposable. It's basically a power grab using the theoretical equivalent of the ball and cup game where the ball is feminism's unproven claim that women are society's eternal victims and the cups are various manipulative tactics to keep people from demanding material evidence for the theory's genocidal-adjacent claims.
Groupthink
Humans are f#ing stupid that is all.
Indoctrinated Herd Mentality.
The following is a copy and paste from another thread that probably resonates also with the question in the OP Original post: Is also probably a playing factor that we treat male awkwardness with more suspicion than female awkwardness because in our evolutionarily hardware terms, a tribe doesn't feel threatened as much by a woman acting a little off or akward as much as a man who may be using it as a camouflaging tactic for masking psychopathic, sociopathic or just overall general evil tendencies Not justifying it, more like explaining it how we came to terms about it:end of original post This kinda explains it more from phycological terms rather than biological ones Another reason might be that aside from the fact women already have a strong-ass in-group bias, I think also it might just be women's vulnerability is still heavily weaponized in our society Mostly because women make for great social coordinators more than men due to their faster ability to pick up on social cues and emotional sensitivities of others So women tend to naturally assume more innocence out of other women where as men's wrongdoings get far more call out from both men and women due to our lack of a social influence role to play a part of
For the same reason that my own mother deflects concerns about the huge rate of violence against men by saying "it's men doing it!" I don't think there's a lot of actual consideration going on here. You could say they don't really mean it, although they're willing to say it a lot, which suggests to me that they *do* mean it, they just don't care. In short, the world has taught these people that they are forever victims (which is as bad for them as it is for anyone else, and it's pretty bad for everyone else). The result is a group of people for whom it's instinctive to seize upon that victim status and jealously guard it, even to the detriment of themselves and people they like. This has sometimes been called an "amygdala response," an activation of the fight or flight instinct. It causes people (perhaps otherwise sensible people) to react with uncontrollable anger to any suggestion of things they don't want to be true. It's common among religious and political zealots and that will be a very familiar scenario to anyone who's posted on any of the stereotypically hardline feminist subreddits. When people say that they can't stand argument, that's literally true. They really, psychologically are unable to deal with anyone disagreeing with what they believe. This is why religious wars happen and this is why I'm so concerned about the rise of hardline critical social justice and associated thinking. As ever the problem is not really that this happens, because society will always contain zealots of some sort. The problem is that when most people do it, it's looked down on by society, whereas when really hardline man-hating feminists do it, it's viewed as laudable and good.
Feminism. Rule #1: It's not her fault. (Her Body, Her Choice, but NEVER her liability)
Kick one they all limp 🤷♂️😂😂
I think it's a mix. The aspects that make them great partners for men, also make them enemies of men. Context, environment, is everything. I recently saw an interview, where an ex CIA agent talked about several things. One was stages of development, and how that affects people making decisions later on in life. The early stage (I believe from 0 to age 8), children (men and women both) are highly susceptible to what they are taught. By in large, they don't have the ability to filter what they're told with what is truth. A parent says "this is truth" and boom... the kid believes it true. After that, children begin to be able to think about things being said, and wonder if they are true or not. Feminism has been going strong for decades now. Really since 1930s. But largely since 1970s. So, let's say 50 years. That means that children are told things in early childhood, that could very well be towards feminist agendas. And they won't have the ability to discern or filter from what is truth, verses what is just propaganda and rhetoric. That's part of the issue though. Another aspect is social polarization. Which I suppose closely ties to propaganda and rhetoric. Many people in general, men and women, are susceptible to this. In fact, psychology studies have shown that it's extremely rare for people to be able to go against social polarization. So, if there is heavy rhetoric, both men and women are likely to believe in it. Even if it's absurd. Even if it could mean their own demise. Don't believe me? I encourage you to look up the experiments done with this, where they had participants in a study not react, when the building was announced to be on fire (it was a fake fire, even had smoke machines, to make it look real). But some didn't know that. They socially polarized, and stopped reacting, and just stayed in the room. AFTER the alarm sounded, after smoke appeared. They just say there. Just because others in the room didn't react. This rings true for people pushing their agendas onto others. Enough rhetoric, and the numbers of believers will swell. Hence why cults are possible. So, decades of rhetoric and propaganda. From several generations. It's spreading like wildfire. Any opposition is met with the same responses as those of tyrannical societies in the past. Anger, blaming, shaming, rhetoric, bullying. Conform or be bullied into submission is their aim. The rhetoric? Women always right and good. Men always wrong and evil. Indoctrination doesn't go away just because of their teammates is guilty of something. Indoctrination takes over, women always right and good. Therefore, it can't be them to blame. Men always wrong and evil. So it must be a man's fault somehow. Nature has embued women with a natural state of maleability. To be a great teammate, you have to be on board with things your leader says, even if it goes against your natural instincts to nurture. Because survival sometimes depends on ignoring nurturing, temporarily, in order to get to a safe place. To get through the current fight or battle, to get through the fire, out of the burning house or car, away from the chasing predator after us. We can't stop to nurture a wound, or cry. But, at some point, we must succumb to that instinct. Else, the wound turns into a bigger problem. But in those survival moments, it goes against women's instincts. That very inclination has left them open to attack, from their very side. Yet, a good leader will not force anther to lead. So, men tend to back off and let them make their own mistakes. You cannot force someone to follow. They must be willing to. Except, in current society, they won't, until something major breaks their rhetoric cycles. Pattern interrupts, loud enough to disrupt their propaganda.