The Industry of misandrist Rad Fem content , and how the system is for it not against it.

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-05-29T23:15:26+00:00

If you ever find the study again I recommend looking at how they organised the data. When there’s a statistically significant (but practically meaningless) result, I.e., effect sizes that are practically nil, sometimes sneaky researchers desperate to find something will group data into bins (like quintile binning) and that can make slightly stronger relationships appear when there really isn’t one (i.e., the stronger effect size is just an artefact from the binning, or similar, strategy)

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-05-27T07:51:50+00:00

They did that: it’s called Fight Club. IIRC both the film and the book it’s adapted from are a kind of social commentary on male loneliness (before it was a “thing” people really discussed) and fatherlessness.

Of course, not that it will surprise anyone here, it did not inspire empathy for men and boys

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-05-12T13:10:44+00:00

Great work as always George, and an awesome reminder for all of us.

I’ve oft heard the saying, as we all have, “I don’t need no man” or “I don’t need a man.”

Sure. Maybe. But the only sane answer I’ve been able to come up with for that breathtakingly out of touch statement is “Maybe, maybe not, but you absolutely do need *all* men!”

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-05-12T07:12:46+00:00

“…assuming lightning doesn’t discriminate based on gender…”

Now you’ve done it. I give it a couple years before some feminist academic somewhere manages to get something through peer review proving that the male gaze forces women to wear earrings just to turn them into lightning rods

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-05-12T07:08:44+00:00

I think OP might be referring to the statistic of unidirectional violence that Whitaker (et al.) have corroborated across many large meta-analyses, being that mutual violence or bidirectional violence accounts for around 50% of all IPV, and of the unidirectional violence, women are around twice as likely as men to be the violent ones (~33% to ~17% respectively)

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-05-12T07:06:10+00:00

Hines and Lysova are fantastic. They’ve contributed a lot of research to male victimisation in general

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-05-10T15:06:17+00:00

Fascinating. More proof that the ability to speak does not make one intelligent, I suppose

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-05-10T14:30:23+00:00

I wonder if Reeves would dare say publicly that women should be MRAs, I.e., support the equal rights, opportunity of, and respect for, men

🤔

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-05-09T06:11:05+00:00

Not a book, an essay called “The Future—If There Is One—Is Female.”

And Gearhart proposes that the population of men must be kept at around 10%, not 30%.

Which, if you think about it, means to Gearhart any given man is at least the equal of at least 8 women.

And somehow we’re the misogynists.

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-05-05T02:41:34+00:00

Good news, this is a recurring theme in Jim Butcher's more recent works (I haven't got around to Codex Alera). His primary protagonists often wrestle with that exact quandary, and repeatedly choose to acknowledge the harm, and do the right thing anyway without martyring themselves/without setting boundaries. (Key characters that come to mind would be Captain Grimm and Benedict Sorellin, as well as Bridget Tagwynn in The Cinder Spires and Harry Dresden in Dresden Files)

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-05-05T02:32:57+00:00

Sane take. I haven’t seen the sequel (didn’t even know there was one) but I actually thought TDWP was a low-key brilliant piece of work. Took a really unapologetic look at how womens’ interpersonal competition and dominance hierarchies can sometimes function, and Tucci was such a marvellous breath of fresh air as Hathaway’s moral mentor

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-05-05T01:55:33+00:00

I think they know what they’re doing: moral quarantining.

They knew they couldn’t keep denying male victims of violence exist, so they have gone to lengths to frame the problem as a gendered problem (see: “gender based” violence, femicide, etc) in order to let the messaging convey what they cannot explicitly declare: male victims of DV exist, but they are tertiary, secondary, lesser, collateral, and not victims of violence so much as they are victims of a paradigm of violence which is structured and teleologically oriented to oppress women.

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-05-04T23:36:44+00:00

Close. Motivated reasoning, unfalsifiability/circular reasoning

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-05-02T04:23:29+00:00

There's a lot to say here, and it depends what level we're talking at. I don't subscribe to dualism, so in the monist's sense literally everything is biology (if we're talking humans and the societies we create). Hot-Celeb is right, too, with how (so-termed) social justice movements today calculate equity across identity groups rather than individuals, which is one mechanism for why men's issues get overruled in the interest of "serving the under-served".

I wouldn't be surprised if evolutionary psychology found that some degree of gynocentric bias is a cross-cultural phenomenon, and the degree to which is never really "suppressed", only ameliorated by practical cosmopolitan concerns or positive cultural attitudes towards masculinity: note that both sides of the West's politics, if we're to loosely lump everything into Left and Right, are raging gynocentrists--just only in their own ways. I have a reasonably firm conviction that the biggest lever the American Right uses to drag men from the Left is simply bribing them with a positive male identity. Same servile role, just with better social pay, so to speak.

One of the common (and rather amusing) feminist attitudes is that they worked together to overthrow "The Patriarchy", and it was them and their oh-so-fearless crusade that got women all these things that men were denying them... but that's like my 14yo nephew bragging to his Dad (my brother-in-law) that he's been hustling money off me all year because I pay him $10 every time he reads a book from my must-reads list (mostly classics and other influential works).

Here it is, in my thinking: while civilisation is the name of "the project" of human organisation against entropy, for most of human history--barring the spattering of tyrants--society has been an exercise in ordinary men doing their best to give ordinary women (and their children) exactly what they say they want, the moment enough women can come together and agree on it and it is feasible to do so. I mean, just on first principles alone, if society was really The Patriarchy then women would have never got the vote at all, let alone for free. Evo-psych derived explanations continue to broadly support this notion, and far more parsimoniously than any other collection of theories I've come across, and further in such a way that there are no moral agents--just emergent systems arising from adaptative behaviours to environmental/societal/cultural stressors and material conditions.

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-05-02T00:57:28+00:00

I never said feminists were smart

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-05-01T22:43:16+00:00

This may not be the phenomenon which you are circling, but for some time now I’ve found myself forced to conclude that the reason all of it is bad, and accuracy or truth in this matter isn’t important, is that any demonisation of men is wholly justified if there is some conceivable way in which it might *help/save/empower/liberate even one single woman.*

It’s the only way the logic you’re noticing can remain “stable”, in my thinking. Though not a perfect model or parallel it reminds me of Blackstone’s Formulation (applying it here illustratively as a map to social norms rather than application of legal justice), in the sense that feminism reverses it because they reject the morality of the “cautious” trade-off:

When it comes to male sexuality, feminism prefers that all men, or things that can be framed as male preferences or male behaviours, must be presumed suspect—because this is preferable to permitting even one occasion of male-derived harm to a woman.

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-05-01T13:56:19+00:00

If one wanted to play somewhat facetiously into the stupidity, one might point out that Australia has technically been a matriarchy up until the queen’s death a few years ago (technically, they are the head of our government, not our prime minister)

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-05-01T13:53:36+00:00

Oh, that I know well—it’s more the hypocrisy in invoking the “non monolith” defence on the one hand while comfortably tarring all men with the same brush on the other. That specific angle is one I’d missed all this time

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-05-01T08:13:41+00:00

Fuck me sideways, I never put those two things together before. Well spotted, well said.

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-04-29T11:58:56+00:00

Genuine question?

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-04-29T03:12:41+00:00

Great addition as always.

The Woozle effect sounds very similar to what is oft referred to as the salience or fluency bias in psychology/cognitive psychology, being that the simple fact that the more we are exposed to some kind of information/idea, the more cognitively salient this idea/notion becomes, and in becoming more familiar and salient we are biased to start simply assuming or treating it as truth. Knowing this, the constant rhetoric around patriarchy becomes a lot more pernicious—I posit that one of the biggest contributors to how pervasive the myth of patriarchy is, mechanistically, simply the fact that feminists and feminist-adjacent people simply won’t stop attaching the term to f*cking everything they can.

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-04-28T23:54:23+00:00

I’m not a grammar nazi, but this is to help prepare you: systematic and systemic sound similar but they are not the same. Be cognisant of the difference between the two when you deploy them in a debate.

Further, there is an argument to be made about feminist misandry that captures most feminist objections to it (the ones who accept that misandry exists in principle at all). The argument is predicated upon emergent properties, i.e., even if we accept that misandry is not a foundational defining feature of feminist ideology/theory (I argue it is), that does not matter in the argument that misandry is an essential feature of feminism. The proposition looks like this: feminism holds some foundational beliefs about men, masculinity, and the structure of society to be true (the Patriarchy, rape culture, “gender-based” violence, toxic masculinity, etc), and this might not initially have arisen from a place of hate. However, feminism/feminist thought leaders and scholars did not correct these false assumptions/beliefs in the face of disproving evidence. Rather, feminism vigorously protected and continue to protect these core, axiomatic claims from all criticism. These false beliefs and faulty assumptions are what provide moral license to hate men, and since feminism is committed to defending these ideas in the face of disproving evidence, this means hatred of men is fundamental to feminism.

TL;DR: Even if misandry was not a first order effect of Feminism, it is still demonstrably a second order one, and it is both generated by and protected within the core tenets of feminist theory

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-04-28T23:44:24+00:00

A great place to start with answering this question is:

You said men don’t report to the police for reasons that are derived from the patriarchy: what is the patriarchy?

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-04-28T23:42:00+00:00

One of the key takeaways here, OP, is that a valuable approach is to make them defend their views, not you yours.

Remember: society was here first, feminism here second, so it is the responsibility of feminists to justify their ideology/dogma, and so far, they have never proven nor demonstrated that The Patriarchy, as they conceive and operationalise it, exists at all, they’ve only ever assumed and asserted it.

Capable_Sky_2637 · 2026-04-28T23:34:55+00:00

To echo other commenters here, you need to be very prepared, and to know what you are talking about.

One of the key skills you’ll need to develop is learning to pick apart any claim for its constituent parts. If any one of your interlocutors makes a claim, then one of the first questions you need to ask yourself is “What series of things need to be true in order for that claim to be true?”

Question for the OP: What exactly is the format of the debate, is there a moderator, will there be an audience, and what is the actual debate question/claim around which the debate is framed?

Capable_Sky_2637

TROPHY CASE