Article blames masculinity, not ideology, as the cause of terrorism and violent extremism 18 upvotes | 1 April, 2018 | by mittenmaster0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-masculinity-not-ideology-drives-violent-extremism/2018/ 03/20/7b223c90-1e29-11e8-b2d9-08e748f892c0_story.html?utm_term=.658a7c304a62 So, BPers often state on this sub that "toxic masculinity" does not intend to categorize all of masculinity as harmful but only certain parts of it. However, this article may suggest otherwise

If you’ve ever wondered why nearly all the people you read about who are joining the Islamic State or neo-Nazi groups or the white-nationalist alt-right are men, Kimmel contends it’s no coincidence: He believes that gender, specifically masculinity, is both “the psychological inspiration” that sends young men into these groups “and the social glue that keeps them involved.”

The author of this article states gender, and masculinity not certain parts of masculinity, is responsible for driving men to commit acts of terrorism.

For Kimmel, a sociologist at Stony Brook University in New York, a deep dive into the complexities of manhood is familiar territory. He’s the author of two other books that cover similar ground: “Angry White Men,” which focuses on wife-beaters and rageaholics and what motivates them, and “Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men,” which looks at the male transition from adolescence to adulthood. In his latest work, Kimmel sits down with men for whom the bright shiny object is violent extremism.

What are your thoughts on this article?

Archived from theredarchive.com

www.TheRedArchive.com Page 1 of 45 Comments despisedlove2 • 29 points • 1 April, 2018 07:00 AM Typical Islamist apologist postmodernist junk.

MercedesBenzoAMG • 10 points • 1 April, 2018 09:54 AM Yep. Lefties will look for any scapegoat if it means they can defend Islam. So fucking ironic. Turkeys protesting in favour of Christmas.

BiggerDthanYou • 4 points • 1 April, 2018 10:12 AM Because radicalization isn't limited to Islam. You might not know this, but there are actually different kinds of terrorists as well. There are right wing extremists, there are left wing extremists, there are Muslim extremists and there are Christian extremists. In history class you might have even learned about the IRA. Saying that solely Islam is to blame doesn't explain why anyone would even let themselves become radicalized in the first place.

MercedesBenzoAMG • 7 points • 1 April, 2018 10:24 AM The IRA is, as you said, history. Islamic terrorism is an actual threat in the present. Try to keep up.

BiggerDthanYou • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 10:28 AM Right wing terrorism is an even bigger threat so I don't know why you only want to talk about Islamic terrorism.

YetAnotherCommenter • 6 points • 1 April, 2018 11:23 AM

Right wing terrorism is an even bigger threat so I don't know why you only want to talk about Islamic terrorism.

This is a pathetically silly excuse. For one, what do you mean by "right wing terrorism" exactly. Are the Cato Institute or Mises Institute or Ayn Rand Institute blowing anyone up? How many people have the alt-right killed? Dylann Roof + the person who killed that prostestor in Charlottesville perhaps? Are mainstream Republicans engaging in terrorism? What about people who simply are immigration hawks (I disagree with aspects of their position but they're hardly terrorists)? What even counts as "right wing" exactly? I mean you could make a pretty good case for ISIS being "right wing" in many senses. Could you give us a definition? There are basically no "right wing terrorists" running around wildly. The KKK is nothing. The last "right wing terrorist" attack I can think of is Roof's shooting, and before that Timothy McVeigh. Jihadism, on the other hand, is an international phenomenon which has spawned terrorist www.TheRedArchive.com Page 2 of 45 attacks in numerous countries across several continents, and is arguably 'subsidized' (if perhaps only in the intellectual sense) by Saudi oil money as well as two well-regarded and institutionalized denominations of the world's second largest religion (specifically Salafism and Deobandism). A few people playing with guns in the middle of the Michigan woods vs. religious denominations which, when combined, control >50% of all Mosques in the UK. Can you really think that Islamism is a lesser threat?

MercedesBenzoAMG • 5 points • 1 April, 2018 11:43 AM

I mean you could make a pretty good case for ISIS being "right wing" in many senses.

This is the exact irony I was pointing out originally. Lefties defend Islam so strongly despite the fact Islam is anti-gay, anti-feminist, etc... they're more right-wing in many aspects than the left's arch nemesis Donald Trump who has quickly become their easy target. But god forbid you criticise the lovely tolerant brown people.

despisedlove2 • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 01:28 AM No irony. Leftists and Islamists are two parts of the global FAIL alliance. As to brown, I am brown as well. Just don't mix me up with their allies.

MercedesBenzoAMG • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 09:07 AM I know man my dad is brown too and he hates Islam more than Donald Trump. I didn't literally mean all brown people was just a joke pointing out that the colour of their skin is the only reason lefties are on their side. You just know that if it was whitie coming out with the same views as Islam the left would hate them. But because they're non-white they an "oppressed minority" so everything they say and do is given a pass.

despisedlove2 • 1 point • 4 April, 2018 03:21 PM Not really. BBC regularly slanders non-Muslim Asians in the UK by referring to them in context of the grooming industry.

[deleted] • 2 points • 2 April, 2018 05:31 PM* I am far, far more terrified of angry aggrieved white guys with their gun fetishes than I am of Muslims. Who just recently slaughtered 17 high-school kids in Florida? An angry white kid with racist leanings.. Before that, who mowed down 20+ worshippers in a rural Texas church? An angry white guy.. Who slaughtered over 50 individuals at a Las Vegas concert? An angry ol' white guy. BTW, nice try in attempting to box-in far Right white nationalist terrorism as solely consisting of Roof and McVeigh's actions... Who recently slaughtered worshippers at a Canadian mosque in Quebec? An angry racist white guy with known support for far-Right causes... Who sauntered into a Wisconsin Sikh temple back in 2012 and gunned down congregants www.TheRedArchive.com Page 3 of 45 before blowing his brains out? A skinhead white terrorist known with ties to white power movements.. In Norway, what maniac was it who went on a blood-soaked shooting/bombing rampage that left dozens and dozens dead? Drumroll please...an angry racist white guy!!! Coming back stateside, who opened fire on two men in a bar in Kansas because they "looked Iranian?" An angry white guy! Who murdered his Lebanese (Christian) neighbor in Oklahoma on racial grounds? Another angry white guy, they're like everywhere... Who open fire in shopping malls, movie theaters, political rallies, ANYWHERE...angry white guys! Who bombs abortion clinics (plus the Olympics)? Hint hint..an angry white guy. Who mails package bombs to unsuspecting citizens? Angry white guys. Y'all need to take chill pills.

blackedoutfast • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 08:07 PM and yet all of those victims of angry white guys added together are just a fraction of the number of victims murdered by muslims in a single act of islamic terror on 9/11. islam is a death cult that shouldn't be tolerated in civilized society.

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 08:15 PM* And those unfortunate victims of extremist Islamist terror are just a fraction of the number of Native Americans murdered by white Christian colonial-settlers during the white invasion of the erroneously titled 'New World' beginning in the late 15th century and continuing until the very present day. White Christians are a death cult who shouldn't be tolerated in civilized society. /s

blackedoutfast • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 08:27 PM the indians should have fought harder to defend their homeland if they wanted to keep it. survival of the fittest.

BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 11:58 AM https://qz.com/1182778/the-far-right-was-responsible-for-the-majority-of-extremist-killing s-in-2017/

White supremacists and other far-right extremists were responsible for 59% of all extremist-related fatalities in the US in 2017, according to the Anti-Defamation League’s (ADL) Center on Extremism. Over the last decade, 71% of domestic extremist related killings in the US were linked to right-wing extremists, while Islamic extremists committed 26% of the killings, the report notes.

YetAnotherCommenter • 4 points • 1 April, 2018 12:01 PM

www.TheRedArchive.com Page 4 of 45 How did the report define "far right" and "extremist" and "extremist-related fatality" exactly? Was Omar Mateen classified as a "far right extremist"? In addition the ADL is about as trustworthy as the SPLC.

IFuckedZoeQuinn • 4 points • 1 April, 2018 12:58 PM https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/murder-and-extremism-in-the-united-states-in-2 017#the-incidents What a surprise: they listed Islamic terrorism and black nationalist violence as "right- wing extremism" in order to adjust the statistics to their liking. Leftists are so predictable. I've learned to always take an extra-close look at the data and methodology whenever a study is pushing left-wing views just because they rig the results so often. "An Islamic extremist, Sayfullo Saipov, is accused of driving a rental truck down a bike path in New York City, killing eight people and injuring 11 others before being shot and arrested by police. Saipov reportedly claimed allegiance to ISIS." "Black nationalist Derick Lamont Brown killed his godfather, with whom he shared a house, and wounded a neighbor and a paramedic before killing himself after police arrived." "Kori Ali Muhammad, a black nationalist, allegedly killed a motel security guard then, several days later, embarked upon a shooting spree that killed three more people before police were able to arrest him." "Joshua Andrew Cummings reportedly shot and killed a transit security guard in Denver. Cummings, a convert to Islam described by people who knew him as possibly becoming radicalized, claimed after his arrest that he had pledged his allegiance to ISIS after three days of fasting behind bars but that the murder was not done on behalf of ISIS." Amazing that lefties support black nationalism, push anti-white racism and fervently support Islam, yet when these groups commit killings they lump them in with white supremacists in order to push their agenda.

despisedlove2 • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 01:30 AM Thanks for catching that. The intellectual dishonesty of these postmodernists is predictable.

BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 08:29 AM* Thanks for what? He posted a list of extremism-related incidents in general and somehow assumed that it is a list of far-right extremism solely because he didn't bother to even read what kind of list it is.

BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 01:25 PM That's a list of extremism-related incidents, but not one of right wing incidents solely.

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 07:58 PM www.TheRedArchive.com Page 5 of 45 Talk about missing the point.

the-4th-survivor • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 02:56 PM What you're missing is that Muslims are a small minority of the population. If 26% of "extremist" killings are committed by Muslims that means they're greatly overrepresented based on their population. Whites are underrepresented at best or evenly represented at worst.

despisedlove2 • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 01:27 AM It is a laughable comparison, but you can't expect members of the FAIL alliance to give up this diversionary defence of their allies so quickly, do you?

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 06:08 PM*

The last "right wing terrorist" attack I can think of is Roof's shooting, and before that Timothy McVeigh.

Then you've obviously been hiding under a rock in the interegnum, which should speak volumes about the validity of the rest of your garbage... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Olympic_Park_bombing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_City_mosque_shooting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Holocaust_Memorial_Museum_shooting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umpqua_Community_College_shooting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overland_Park_Jewish_Community_Center_shooting https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting And many, many, MANY more isolated incidents with casualty counts as well...

KrispyMcSockington • 4 points • 1 April, 2018 02:34 PM

Right wing terrorism Islam

Islam could hardly be considered liberal. Women have to cover up, be escorted by men, no premarital sex (some countries punish this severely), no alcohol, no feminism, no freedom of speech in some states, gay and lesbian rights don't exist and anyone boning a member of the same sex would be put to death. Why in the hell would you not see it as right wing? Tolerance is one thing, but you and your liberal friends are fighting conservatives at home while giving a free pass to the conservatives from the outside. These are the same people whose laws you have a problem with and who are actively against all you stand for. It's like you're beating your neighbour for hurting your feelings while letting someone else rape your daugter. Makes no sense.

BiggerDthanYou • 0 points • 1 April, 2018 03:47 PM In regards to terrorism it makes more sense to have them as a distinct group from far-right www.TheRedArchive.com Page 6 of 45 extremism.

the_calibre_cat • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 06:37 PM Yes, that way you can imply that having right-wing views is bad because it makes people potentially violent

BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 01:49 PM Would you be happier if they made a list that grouped Islamic terrorists and white nationalists together as far-right extremists? Why doesn't it make more sense to put Islamic terrorists in a distinct group?

despisedlove2 • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 01:30 AM

In regards to terrorism it makes more sense to have them as a distinct group from far-right extremism.

Otherwise, your FAIL alliance would be in trouble.

BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 09:28 AM One group is motivated by Islam, the other group is motivated by wanting to stop the spread the Islam. Why would it make sense to put them in the same category of terrorism considering that they would love to blow each other up. And wouldn't you also be hiding the truth if you called them merely far-right extremists instead of calling them out as Islamic extremists?

despisedlove2 • 1 point • 4 April, 2018 03:23 PM Both are right wingers. When it comes to right wingers reactionaries, there isn't a more right wing force than Islamists. Anyone trying to stop those crazies is a friend of human civilization and a liberal.

KrispyMcSockington • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 10:19 AM Terrorism is terrorism. Whatever their reason is, I doubt very much the bulk of muslims nor the bulk of conservatives actually want to kill others to make a point.

MercedesBenzoAMG • 6 points • 1 April, 2018 10:47 AM Lmao how many "right wing terrorists" have driven trucks into people? I'll wait.

reluctantly_red • 7 points • 1 April, 2018 03:11 PM In the continental United States right wing extremists are indeed more dangerous. In other parts of the world things are obviously different and Islamic extremists (who could be considered right wing BTW) are the threat. Personally I can't stand either group.

MercedesBenzoAMG • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 03:41 PM I'm not exactly supporting either side here but anyone who looks at the state of www.TheRedArchive.com Page 7 of 45 geopolitics right now and proclaims that right-wing terrorism is more of a threat to the world than ISIS is simply blind. ISIS has taken over cities, waged wars with governments, and killed thousands of innocent civilians. I don't exactly see the 4chans with green frog memes doing this.

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 04:30 AM

In the continental United States right wing extremists are indeed more dangerous.

Where is your proof? What are you defining as dangerous here?

reluctantly_red • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 05:56 AM Read the Southern Poverty Law Center reports.

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 07:54 AM Why do you believe an agency who is bias against white people is more credible than the department of justice or the FBI ?

blackedoutfast • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 08:20 PM

SPLC

lol. and lists RP/manosphere/MRA sites as "male supremacist" hate groups. SPLC is just more left-wing bullshit

storffish • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 03:26 PM in the US they don't use trucks because guns are legal and there are more obstacles to driving off the road than old-style European town centers. you're more likely to get blown away by an angry white kid with a gun than run over by an Arab in a truck.

MercedesBenzoAMG • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 03:38 PM And yet as far as I'm aware even in the land of the guns, the same country that gave birth to the alt-right, there has only been one actual "right-wing terrorist" mass shooter: Dylan Roof. Where are all these terrorist incidents that supposedly make this ill-defined "right-wing terrorism" worse than ISIS?

TheGreasyPole • 3 points • 1 April, 2018 04:00 PM Um, while you may or may not have a point globally (and I'm going to stay out of that one). You don't actually have point in the US. It hasn't just been Dylan Roof... I've seen you know snopes before so there shouldn't really be an issue with credibility here... https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/06/07/threat-extremists-more/

Deaths from Muslim extremism vs far-right extremism A major April 2017 report by the Government Accountability Office tracked www.TheRedArchive.com Page 8 of 45 incidents of far-right and Muslim extremist violence, and concluded the following: Between 12 September 2001 and 31 December 2016, there were 23 fatal “Radical Islamist Violent Extremist-Motivated Attacks,” resulting in a total of 119 deaths in the United States. In the same time period, there were 62 fatal “far-right violent extremist-motivated attacks”, leading to 106 deaths. Just two events account for more than half of the 119 deaths resulting from Muslim extremist attacks: the December 2015 San Bernardino attack, which killed 14 people, and the June 2016 Pulse night club attack, which killed 49 people. According to the University of Maryland’s START consortium, between 12 September 2001 and 2016 there were 31 fatal “Islamist extremist” attacks, leading to 119 deaths. In the same time period, there were 89 “far-right extremist” attacks, resulting in a total of 158 deaths. So both data sources agree that far-right extremist attacks are far more common, but they differ on the total number of deaths, with one source concluding that Muslim extremist violence has killed slightly more people (119 deaths, as opposed to 106), and another concluding that far-right extremist violence has killed significantly more (158 deaths, as opposed to 119).

[...]

But when it comes to extremist violence perpetrated by refugees, the numbers are unequivocal. In the four decades between 1975 and 2015, only 20 individuals who arrived in the U.S. as refugees either attempted or carried out a terrorist attack – resulting in three deaths. And, of most relevance to President Donald Trump’s proposed immigration ban, all three of those killings were perpetrated by anti-Castro refugees. Not a single death has resulted from terrorist activity by a Muslim extremist refugee.

MercedesBenzoAMG • 3 points • 1 April, 2018 04:07 PM

between 12 September 2001 and 2016

The figures you quoted there specifically excluded 9/11, how convenient.

blackedoutfast • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 07:56 PM

Not a single death has resulted from terrorist activity by a Muslim extremist refugee.

interesting how they emphasize how few murders were committed by "refugees" (one very specific type of immigrant) to imply that domestic right- wing non-muslim terrorists are the real problem. the pulse nightclub shooter and the husband in the san bernandino shooting were American-born anchor babies and the san bernandino wife was here on a fiancee visa.

www.TheRedArchive.com Page 9 of 45 the brothers who committed the boston marathon bombings came to the us on a temporary tourist visa then applied for asylum. the guy who committed the truck attack in NYC last year was here on a "diversity" visa. the virginia tech shooter was a south korean national with us residency.

Mr_Smoogs • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 09:56 PM And the per capita number?

storffish • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 03:43 PM I'm not talking about what they label themselves, right-wing or otherwise, I'm just talking about the weapons they use and frequency that they use them. the US has no shortage of angry men shooting places up. if anything their general lack of an ideology lends more credence to the masculinity as a bigger factor than ideology argument. you can pack up your ISIS strawman for another thread.

MercedesBenzoAMG • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 04:09 PM If they lack an ideologically driven motive they cannot be labelled "right-wing terrorists" then, can they? And no I don't consider the mass shooting issue to be linked to masculinity, this is a very US specific cultural issue. Come to the UK and see how many mass shootings we have over here. This is America's problem to fix, it cannot be blamed on "masculinity." This is just using a convenient scapegoat for the left. In one swoop they can blame men and ignore the real issues.

despisedlove2 • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 01:24 AM How does the mode of killing matter? The US also hasn't let in hordes of Islamists as refugees, and since 9-11, security is so tight that an Islamist could hardly slip through. Ask your European cousins how they are doing.

BiggerDthanYou • 3 points • 1 April, 2018 10:49 AM https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/12/virginia-unite-the-right-rally-protest-v iolence https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/01/finsbury-park-van-attacker-darren-osb orne-found-guilty-murder-makram-ali

MercedesBenzoAMG • 3 points • 1 April, 2018 10:57 AM First one:

killing one person and injuring 19.

Second one:

killing one and injuring 12. www.TheRedArchive.com Page 10 of 45 Omg wow that's totally more dead than the ISIS attacks amirite? Clearly they're the real threat, just let ISIS get on with it at this point because these guys killed two people combined. Literally worse than ISIS. Leftie logic

BiggerDthanYou • 0 points • 1 April, 2018 11:11 AM So the fact that the number of right wing terrorist attacks is multiple times higher than the number of Islamic attacks doesn't matter at all?

MercedesBenzoAMG • 5 points • 1 April, 2018 11:16 AM You linked two. Two. Each killed only one person. And you are genuinely trying to claim they are worse than ISIS. I mean seriously.

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 05:40 PM Right-wing white nationalist terrorists have killed many people...From a mosque in Quebec to a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, from an Olympic rally in Atlanta to the mean green streets of Oslo Norway, white nationalist terrorists have brought their own healthy doses of death and destruction...

MercedesBenzoAMG • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 06:06 PM Mostly in America tho. Except the one in Norway 7 years ago. ISIS have killed thousands all over the world. No contest. I don't care for America-centrism.

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 06:19 PM And where did Isis emerge out of? Where were they 15, 20 years ago? Did they just pop out of nowhere, whack-a-mole style? No. There's obviously a political dimension to Isis, related to the politics of Iraq (and later Syria) following the American invasion and occupation of Iraq...its argumentatively infantile to point to the actions of Isis and use their barbaric conduct as a brush with which to paint nearly 2 BILLION followers of a faith, just as it is to take the actions of the Irgun and Stern Gangs from the founding of Israel in '48 and use that as a weapon to attack Judaism, or taking the actions of the modern-day Lords Resistance Army in Uganda to tarnish all Christians, etc etc..

MercedesBenzoAMG • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 07:03 PM I don't disagree man. USA funded ISIS because they are invading all countries in that area for oil. Then ISIS turned around and decided fuck the West. I said in another comment already, I find it funny how before 9/11 the USA happily funded the IRA and didn't give a shit that they were terrorists. Then suddenly after 9/11 they understood what being on the receiving end of it was like and changed their tune. USA are the biggest terrorists in the world. www.TheRedArchive.com Page 11 of 45 But two wrongs don't make a right... just because the USA are cunts doesn't mean you can defend ISIS's actions.

Jammerly1 • 1 points • 1 April, 2018 05:24 PM [recovered] Why would they need to do that when you can just give them a badge and a gun so they can beat down brown people legally?

blackedoutfast • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 08:28 PM

Of all the mass shootings in the US, the VAST majority are tiki-torch whites

that is absolutely incorrect. the vast majority "mass shootings" and school shootings are urban gang-related violence and domestic violence murder-suicide bullshit. when you hear that there have been 400 "mass shootings" in the last year that's because the definition includes basically anything with more than one person involved. and if you look at the top 10 deadliest mass shootings in term of victims, two (pulse nightclub and san bernandino) were clearly muslim terrorism. one (virginia tech) was a non-white south korean immigrant. and the rest were committed by white men who were either obviously just crazy nutjobs (sandy hook, etc) or the motivation is unclear (las vegas). the only really notable example of a mass shooting committed by a white man that was clearly an act of right-wing racist terrorism was the dylan roof charleston church shooting, and that's not even in the top 25 in terms of deaths.

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 04:42 AM

that is absolutely incorrect.

In reality all this hyper-focus on neo-nazi's and white supremacists is a complete distortion of truth by the left. I mean yea they are bad people but the vast majority of murders are committed by blacks in America: https://www.theatlas.com/charts/E1pEnFs7e

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 07:03 PM

the rest were committed by white men who were either obviously just crazy nut jobs

Ahh, the ol' mental illness excuse for when whitey goes bonkers, but it's in "their culture-religion-DNA" for when a minority man goes bonkers...thank you for putting on full display the pathetic pandering to the white male privilege of being humanized even when in the throes of the most despicable conduct imaginable, while revoking that possible explanation for when a minority man goes off the rails, in favor of a sweeping generalized condemnation of that minority's race, religion, and culture..

blackedoutfast • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 08:09 PM

while revoking that possible explanation for when a minority man goes off www.TheRedArchive.com Page 12 of 45 the rails

ok fair enough. anyone who believes in islam clearly has mental issues

MercedesBenzoAMG • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 05:46 PM Yes again you're talking about issues extremely specific to American culture, not issues intrinsic to masculinity. Police don't routinely shoot innocent people in the UK. Most are not even armed in the first place. The US needs to sort its shit out and stop blaming external issues for its dysfunctional culture.

ABC_Florida • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 06:26 PM I'm glad I don't live in the US. Although I think your claim is a big exaggeration.

Jammerly1 • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 06:57 PM I wish it was. There are huge protests right now because two officers shot an unarmed black man in his grandmothers backyard in his back in California last week. The US is all for ignoring the Bill of Rights when it comes to black citizens. We literally have some of the most racist laws on our books which are entirely there to disenfranchise and infringe upon the rights of black people.

ABC_Florida • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 07:40 PM I don't doubt the cases where there is police brutality and misuse of power. Last story I followed was a white guy crawling on all fours in the corridor, given ridiculous orders and executed by a tatted up cop, who since travelled to a country with no extradition agreement with the US. I know that this is the more seldom case at least in the news. I also recall Michael Brown being a 'gentle giant'. Well except to other brown people, like that convenient store clerk. Isn't that where BLM started? At best it is a controversial case. That cop either shot him in rapid fire, or he was really charging at him. Since I recall reading his autopsy report, and I recall a bullet trajectory entering the top of his head, exiting around the eye brows, and hitting his collar bone. What for sure was inappropriate, was the police department's action of having a poem engraved about him being killed. I do recall a police chief talking about the bias of the media, when it comes to dead black man. I also recall a black man confronting BLM protestors saying that he has 2,000 times bigger chance of being shot by another black man than by a police officer/white man/neo-nazi. It seems to me that it isn't that good of a headline when blacks shoot each other. Police shooting blacks sells better. Compare a "The first 48" episode's views to a news report of a black man being shot by cops.

The US is all for ignoring the Bill of Rights when it comes to black citizens. We literally have some of the most racist laws on our books which are entirely there to disenfranchise and infringe upon the rights of black people. www.TheRedArchive.com Page 13 of 45 Is it really? What racist laws do you still have? How is it that brown people from Asia are not in the news being shot by the police en masses then?

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 04:45 AM Would you mind explaining why 4 black, nearby witnesses all thought Michael Brown deserved to be shot by Darren Wilson?

Witness 103, a 58-year-old black male, testified that from his parked truck he saw "Brown punching Wilson at least three times in the facial area, through the open driver's window of the SUV... Wilson and Brown [had] hold of each other's shirts, but Brown was "getting in a couple of blows [on Wilson]"."[10]:p.29 Wilson was leaning back toward the passenger seat with his forearm up, in an effort to block the blows. Then Witness 103 heard a gunshot and Brown took off running. Wilson exited the SUV, appeared to be using his shoulder microphone to call into his radio, and chased Brown with his gun held low...Brown came to a stop near a car, put his hand down on the car, and turned around to face Wilson. Brown's hands were then down at his sides. Witness 103 did not see Brown's hands up. Wanting to leave, Witness 103 began to turn his car around in the opposite direction that Brown had been running when he heard additional shots. Witness 103 turned to his right, and saw Brown "moving fast" toward Wilson. Witness 103 then drove away."[10]:p.29 Witness 104, a 26-year-old biracial female, witnessed the end of the altercation from a minivan: [Witness 104] saw Brown run from the SUV, followed by Wilson, who "hopped" out of the SUV and ran after him while yelling "stop, stop, stop". Wilson did not fire his gun as Brown ran from him. Brown then turned around and "for a second" began to raise his hands as though he may have considered surrendering, but then quickly "balled up in fists" in a running position and "charged" at Wilson. Witness 104 described it as a "tackle run", explaining Brown "wasn't going to stop". Wilson fired his gun only as Brown charged at him, backing up as Brown came toward him. Witness 104 explained there were three separate volleys of shots. Each time, Brown ran toward Wilson, Wilson fired, Brown paused, Wilson stopped firing, and then Brown charged again. The pattern continued until Brown fell to the ground, "smashing" his face upon impact. Wilson did not fire while Brown momentarily had his hands up. Witness 104 explained it took some time for Wilson to fire, adding that she "would have fired sooner". Wilson did not go near Brown's body after Brown fell to his death.[10]:p.30 Witness 108, a 74-year-old black male, told detectives the police officer was "in the right" and "did what he had to do," and that statements made by people in the apartment complex about Brown surrendering were inaccurate. Witness 108 later told investigators he "would have fucking shot that boy, too", and mimicked the aggressive stance Brown made while charging Wilson. He explained Wilson told Brown to "stop" or "get down" at least ten times, but instead Brown "charged" at Wilson. Witness 108 also told detectives there were other witnesses on Canfield Drive who saw what www.TheRedArchive.com Page 14 of 45 he did.[10]:p.32

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Michael_Brown#Witness_accounts

Mr_Smoogs • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 09:58 PM Most mass shootings in the US are committed by gangs.

Jammerly1 • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 10:07 PM There isn’t a consensus on what a mass shooting is. https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/13/health/mass-shootings-in-america-in-charts-and- graphs-trnd/index.html

Even if you were right, why aren’t we endlessly psychoanlayzing these gang members to find out what their motivations are and what went wrong? We need put this on all the 24 hr news cycles!

Oh my bad the victims are mostly black so no one cares about it then. Cool.

Mr_Smoogs • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 10:22 PM Stop carrying around this expectation that society should give a shit about you. They don’t and they shouldn’t. The only sympathy points you gather this way is from beta males and women with white guilt. You’d be better off gaining respect than begging for it.

despisedlove2 • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 01:25 AM Spoken like a true member of the FAIL alliance.

[deleted] • 3 points • 1 April, 2018 12:23 PM Because Islam doesn't belong in the West. Can't do anything about current citizens, but it's silly to allow such violent people in on purpose

Five_Decades • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 06:35 PM Islamic terrorism is right wing terrorism.

BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 06:40 PM Would you prefer it if the study labeled Islamic terrorism as right wing terrorism? Wouldn't grouping those two together be like hiding the truth and inflating the numbers of what people assume to be white nationalists?

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 07:57 PM And yet the FBI labeled antifa as terrorists, a leftwing group, go figure.

BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 08:01 PM Look three comments up. I already mentioned that left wing extremists do exist as well.

www.TheRedArchive.com Page 15 of 45 despisedlove2 • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 05:45 PM You are dealing with a leftist.

[deleted] • 3 points • 1 April, 2018 02:05 PM

Because radicalization isn't limited to Islam.

You mean feminism? its great enemy being.... the white man.

despisedlove2 • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 01:20 AM The proof of the pudding lies in the eating. The day the body count stacked up by your favorite diversion matches the achievements of the followers of the religion of peace, do let us know.

Mr_Smoogs • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 01:20 PM http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-43610936 Are you trying to out-compete us bruv?

MercedesBenzoAMG • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 06:29 PM Almost all knife crime is gang related mate if you're not a member of a gang you are probs fine. I walk the streets of London every day for my whole life and never once have I even been mugged.

Mr_Smoogs • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 06:32 PM Gun crimes in america as well though. We'll see who wins this 2018 murder contest...

Five_Decades • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 06:34 PM Howso? There are about 180 million Muslims in India. How many of them are terrorists compared to 180 million Muslims from Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc? Per capita, there are far more muslim terrorists in Palestine or Saudi Arabia than a place like India. The root of these extremist ideologies is people who feel emasculated and invaded by those they considered impure outsiders. Muslims feel invaded by the Christian west. White nationalists in the west feel invaded by Muslims, latino immigrants, blacks, etc. Both feel invaded by Jews, feminists and secularists. Both support an authoritarian, reactionary, nationalist, fundamentalist revolution to kick out the 'impurities' from their culture. Islam as a whole has more problems than christianity. But there are millions of Muslims in places like India who aren't causing problems. It is the muslims in nations where they feel invaded and conquered that are behind these problems.

despisedlove2 • 1 point • 4 April, 2018 03:57 PM* Given that I am Indian American, born and raised in India, and currently living at least half of my time in India, I am sorry to inform you that the Bush era bromide about no Indian Muslims being Al Qaeda is increasingly misleading. India is not immune to the global Islamist movement. A very large number of ISIS recruits from Asia are from India. India also has a few domestic Islamist organizations, such as SIMI, besides the many Pakistan sponsored organizations which have carried out violent attacks. What has kept many Indian www.TheRedArchive.com Page 16 of 45 Muslims in check is their fear of being called Pakistanis in disguise, which is a legacy of 1947. Unchecked illegal immigration in the east has already changed the demographics of two states, and there are political parties that could give European leftists lessons on Islamist appeasement.

autoNFA • 0 points • 1 April, 2018 05:02 PM It's also white nationalist and neo-Nazi apologist junk.

despisedlove2 • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 01:31 AM Weak.

autoNFA • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 02:28 AM All three are evil - Islam, white nationalism, and Nazi-ism alike.

[deleted] • 1 point • 4 April, 2018 10:45 PM I'm Moslem...do you think I'm an evil person?

autoNFA • 1 point • 5 April, 2018 12:30 AM If a person willfully adheres to a nakedly violent, oppressive ideology, what does that say about that person?

[deleted] • 1 point • 5 April, 2018 12:38 AM Islam is not "nakedly violent,' nor "oppressive," certainly not the Islam I practice. There are most certainly interpretations of Islam by others who twist the faith into an instrument of oppression and violence, but the exact same thing could be said of every single other faith on the planet. You are one narrow-minded, judgemental individual. Continue with the hatred towards my faith, because you're only making it stronger..

autoNFA • 1 point • 5 April, 2018 12:45 AM I suppose I did omit the possibility of being too stupid to notice unambiguous glorification of genocide and a mass murderer. Being judgmental of evil is fundamentally good.

[deleted] • 1 point • 5 April, 2018 12:56 AM You mean like certain adherents of Christianity (though not all)? The people who wiped out the Native Americans? The ones who created concentration camps for non-Aryans to expedite genocide? The people who dropped the atomic bombs? The ones who created artificial famine in India that killed millions? The conquistadors who raped and slaughtered their way across the "New World?" The ones who butchered their way across the Holy Land in the middle ages and capped their conquests with the wholesale slaughter of all non-Christians when Jerusalem was taken? Please clarify, what mass murders and genocides do you mean?

autoNFA • 1 point • 5 April, 2018 01:06 AM Where do you see me praising Christianity? Bunch of pro-slavery bastards.

www.TheRedArchive.com Page 17 of 45 despisedlove2 • 0 points • 4 April, 2018 03:24 PM Given that terrorism is the near sole preserve of Islamists, your attempt to conflate them together is weak.

[deleted] • 1 point • 4 April, 2018 04:43 PM Except for, you know, the many terrorist acts committed by white nationalists/supremacists in North America...

autoNFA • 1 point • 5 April, 2018 12:25 AM Bullshit (not including: Norway island terror attack, Texas package bomber, that dude in Charlottesville who rammed people with a car, etc.)

Salty-Bastard • 16 points • 1 April, 2018 01:47 AM It's popular nowadays to blame men and masculinity for all of the worlds troubles. The author is full of shit and just trying to sell books.

Tedesche • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 08:03 AM Actually, Michael Kimmel is where a lot of this stuff started. He’s not cashing in on a trend, he’s the true believer that started it.

[deleted] • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 09:17 AM I would say he is one of many. This is really stemming from 2nd wave feminism view of men are evil. Its getting more widespread as not only is it somehow acceptable to do but has gotten more popular and grown more. Its at a point that some feminists have started to speak out against it. tho I fear their voices will be silenced.

Tedesche • 5 points • 1 April, 2018 09:27 AM I was referring specifically to the toxic masculinity thing. Feminists who have criticized the movement for being anti-male have always been disavowed from the sisterhood. Nothing has changed. Look at Camille Paglia or Christina Hoff Sommers. Cassie Jaye ultimately discarded the label herself after feminists refused to fund her work when they found out it was sympathetic to MRAs. Feminism, in many ways, operates like a religion, and heretics are not dealt with leniently.

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 05:46 AM

I was referring specifically to the toxic masculinity thing.

Which came out during the 2nd wave.

Tedesche • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 12:43 PM The concept was created during the second wave, but it didn’t really become vogue until the third. I agree that feminism’s attitudinal regard for men as evil began in the second wave though.

[deleted] • -1 points • 1 April, 2018 12:39 PM

www.TheRedArchive.com Page 18 of 45 Feminism, in many ways, operates like a religion, and heretics are not dealt with leniently.

yeah, that's an old tired line, too. I am just as weary of lines saying feminism is a religion as I am tired of hearing that men are evil. Ok, we've heard those sayings before. Now what the fuck are you going to do? Find new lines to talk about? Probably not. Change the subject to something important? probably not. So, what are you goin to do now?

Tedesche • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 01:10 PM

So, what are you goin to do now?

Ignore you? You’ve made no argument, just bitched about something I said.

[deleted] • -1 points • 1 April, 2018 01:37 PM

about something I said.

Yes, you flourish in repeating memes and one-liners.

Tedesche • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 01:50 PM No, I don’t.

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 05:46 AM Tissue?

Jammerly1 • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 10:43 PM I blame patriarchy, but necessarily masculinity. blackedoutfast • 12 points • 1 April, 2018 05:48 AM all the SJW nonsense and hardcore feminism can be just as toxic, but women tend to avoid physical violence because they are inherently weaker than men. occasionally women do get involved in that kind of thing but they usually don't last long. perfect example: that moldylocks antifa cunt who got clocked by the fashy bro at the protest a few months ago. she was all fired up to raise hell but she had no chance once things got real.

MercedesBenzoAMG • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 09:56 AM Antifa are so fucking pathetic haha, posting photos trying to make themselves seem all scary wearing masks and holding weapons, and their whole platform is literally threatening violence, but you clock one in the face and it's game over.

[deleted] • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 12:25 PM Plus they kinda stick to their safe areas. I've never seen an antifa protest. I don't imigine it going well for them here

crackrocksteady7 • 3 points • 1 April, 2018 02:14 PM They stick to where the police is controlled by the left and will arrest anyone who fights back

www.TheRedArchive.com Page 19 of 45 [deleted] • 19 points • 1 April, 2018 04:21 AM Women like to blame toxic masculinity because they don't like to admit single moms are responsible

Littleknownfacts[M] • 3 points • 1 April, 2018 12:13 PM This comment was reported for circle-jerking but it doesn't seem circle-jerky to me since he is disagreeing with the OP so it stays.

BiggerDthanYou • -2 points • 1 April, 2018 08:05 AM You might be surprised to learn this, but for normal people women are considered to be part of society. A mother that teaches her son that men shouldn't ever cry is pushing toxic masculinity upon him.

[deleted] • 13 points • 1 April, 2018 09:14 AM

normal people women are considered to be part of society.

They do. Yet somehow that's never the case with feminism. Somehow masculinity is always to blame, never women.

BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 09:35 AM If they blame masculinity the blame falls on society. Women are part of society.

MercedesBenzoAMG • 10 points • 1 April, 2018 11:01 AM Holy mental gymnastics Batman! "Yeah I'm blaming everything on black people but really I'm blaming society."

BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 11:09 AM It takes mental gymnastics to assume that it blames men though. How do you even manage to read things like "shaming men for expressing feelings is toxic masculinity" or "the idea that needing help is emasculating is toxic masculinity" and see them as blaming men? Men are clearly portrayed as the victims of toxic masculinity and not on those who the blame is put on.

MercedesBenzoAMG • 9 points • 1 April, 2018 11:10 AM "Oh look I'm not actually blaming black people, I'm just blaming toxic blackness, totes a different thing."

BiggerDthanYou • 0 points • 1 April, 2018 11:15 AM Explain to me how toxic masculinity blame men. Masculinity refers to expectations on men and behaviors we deem appropriate for them. It doesn't refer to things that men do. It refers to the things society tells men they should be doing. How is calling some of those norms men have to fulfill toxic the same as putting the blame on men? The blame is put on those in society who promote and enforce those norms. Your analogy fails because blackness refers to the state of being black, but masculinity refers to the rules society has set up for men. www.TheRedArchive.com Page 20 of 45 MercedesBenzoAMG • 10 points • 1 April, 2018 11:22 AM "Look, toxic blackness isn't actually blaming black people, it only describes the expectations and behaviours of black people I don't like and why they should change so they stop being monsters who rob and kill everyone!" I can do this all day but somehow I doubt it'll ever click in your head how it's an identical form of bigotry. You can literally just straight swap the word "male" for "black" in your comments and see for yourself, ala /r/StormfrontorSJW. But you will fight this to the very end regardless. I honestly find the motivations of white knights concerning. When women are this hateful towards men I at least understand they're coming from a place of wanting to protect their "tribe" if you will, even if their ideas are wrong they at least come from a good place. But male feminists make me far more suspicious:

Feminism teaches that men are predators. Of course, this isn’t true. But because male sex predators do not want to think of themselves as monsters, feminism offers them an out by telling them, in basic terms, that they can’t help the way they are because it’s how all men are.

BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 12:45 PM

I can do this all day but somehow I doubt it'll ever click in your head how it's an identical form of bigotry.

I know that you can do this all day, but it doesn't change anything about the fact that your analogy is faulty.

You can literally just straight swap the word "male" for "black" in your comments and see for yourself, ala /r/StormfrontorSJW.

I don't think that "harmful stereotypes society holds about black people and social norms that prevent them from getting education are toxic black-inity" sounds as if it puts the blame on black people and neither that it sounds as if I hate black people.

But you will fight this to the very end regardless.

Because I seriously don't understand how critics of toxic masculinity can have such a bad reading comprehension. I simply want to understand how some people can understand things like "shaming men for expressing feelings is toxic masculinity" as an attack on men.

[deleted] • 3 points • 1 April, 2018 12:48 PM

Masculinity refers to expectations on men and behaviors we deem appropriate for them.

Indeed. Self-control, self-discipline, stoicism, duty, honesty, integrity, loyalty, www.TheRedArchive.com Page 21 of 45 courageousness, self-respect, respect for other people are all strong male attributes. But to feminism these same healthy male traits are deemed toxic because feminism prefers a complete surrender to emotions and erratic behavior.

BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 01:23 PM Don't apply black and white logic. "shaming men for expressing feelings is toxic masculinity" is not the same as "having control over your feelings is toxic masculinity" nor "not crying all the time is toxic masculinity"

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 05:56 AM

Explain to me how toxic masculinity blame men.

Explain to me how it doesn't.

Masculinity refers to expectations on men and behaviors we deem appropriate for them.

Didn't you like just yesterday claimed masculinity was not deemed a behavior? So much for sticking to the definition, oh wait masculinity is a behavior.

BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 08:22 AM Learn how to read complete sentences. "behaviors we deem appropriate in men" ≠ "behaviors of men"

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 05:54 AM

It takes mental gymnastics to assume that it blames men though.

Even tho it doesn't. It takes an awful lot to outright ignore the fact that toxic masculinity blames men. We both know you can not proven otherwise. As we both know you can't prove nor show that toxic masculinity doesn't blame men.

Men are clearly portrayed as the victims of toxic masculinity and not on those who the blame is put on.

Bull. Fucking. Shit. Women are the ones who are clearly portrayed as the victims here not women.

YetAnotherCommenter • 6 points • 1 April, 2018 10:47 AM So why don't feminists encourage women to analyze the ways in which they contribute to toxic masculinity? Why don't they tell women how they can be part of the problem? Why doesn't the feminist press print article after article talking about the ways in which women add to and incentivize toxic masculinity? Why does the feminist movement contain figures like Katz and Kimmel, who argue that men need to become better white knights (i.e. better exemplars of a particular aspect of traditional masculinity, which can be toxic in large quantities)? Why is precious little ink spilled on women's contribution to toxic masculinity? www.TheRedArchive.com Page 22 of 45 [deleted] • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 11:05 AM It’s been done. https://www.geneseo.edu/sites/default/files/sites/health/2008_Serano_Why_Nice.pdf For whatever reason, the idea doesn’t generate much traction.

BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 11:04 AM

So why don't feminists encourage women to analyze the ways in which they contribute to toxic masculinity? Why don't they tell women how they can be part of the problem?

But they do. If they say stuff like "we need to stop shaming men for X" or "we need to stop saying Real Men should do Y" this also includes the women who read that article.

Why doesn't the feminist press print article after article talking about the ways in which women add to and incentivize toxic masculinity?

They are talking about society incentivizing toxic masculinity and well women are part of society.

YetAnotherCommenter • 5 points • 1 April, 2018 11:27 AM

But they do.

Maybe occasionally and never with the same venom they direct towards men they accuse of "manspreading." The vast majority of the time they're just screeching at men and demanding men change and refusing to assist in the project of reforming social gender norms.

They are talking about society incentivizing toxic masculinity and well women are part of society.

I mean explicitly and not by implication.

[deleted] • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 12:44 PM

If they blame masculinity the blame falls on society. Women are part of society.

Women can't be part of society because women are supposedly oppressed, and if women were part of society, then women wouldn't be oppressed, and if women are not oppressed, then women are not victims, and if women are not victims, then there is no feminism.

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 05:57 AM More like if women are part of society then they hold responsibility, the fact that feminists want to remove said responsibility from them says otherwise.

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 05:48 AM MercedesBenzoAMG is right those are some mental gymnastics.

BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 09:24 AM Explain to me how those are mental gymnastics. They are blaming "social conditioning" and "gender roles". How are women excluded from www.TheRedArchive.com Page 23 of 45 this considering that women are part of society? Women also do encourage or shame men into confirming to gender roles.

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 10:09 AM

Explain to me how those are mental gymnastics.

I aks how its not, but we both know you won't as you can't. I wait for your "you can't read" reply. As apparently that is all you can do, besides crying strawmans.

They are blaming "social conditioning" and "gender roles".

No they aren't. They are blaming men. If that wasn't the case then why do feminists keep on blaming men for violence? I ask for evidence of feminists actually doing this but we both know you won't as you can't and your just making up bullshit as we know you can't debate at all.

BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 11:28 AM

I aks how its not, but we both know you won't as you can't.

I already explained that if they are blaming masculinity that they are blaming society, which includes women. Blaming gender roles isn't the same as blaming men.

No they aren't.

Then try reading the article. They do blame social conditioning and gender roles.

They are blaming men.

They are blaming the rules we put on men.

I ask for evidence of feminists actually doing this but we both know you won't as you can't and your just making up bullshit as we know you can't debate at all.

We both know that every time when I do actually show it you somehow can't manage to understand that there's a difference between "behaviors of men" and "behaviors that we deem appropriate for men" or "what's typical for a gender" and "gender norms".

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 06:44 PM

I already explained that if they are blaming masculinity that they are blaming society, which includes women.

No you didn't.

Then try reading the article.

What article?

They are blaming the rules we put on men.

No they blame men.

We both know that every time when I do actually show it

You don't show shit and you know it. So really stop your lying, its really getting www.TheRedArchive.com Page 24 of 45 tiresome. This is besides your total lack of ability to debate and well nearly all of your replies are nothing but saying "you can't read" or crying strawmans. Serious BiggerD why are you even here when you aren't going to debate? More so how your a mod is beyond me.

[deleted] • 4 points • 1 April, 2018 09:20 AM Do you cry allot?

[deleted] • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 12:42 PM

A mother that teaches her son that men shouldn't ever cry is pushing toxic masculinity upon him.

That's not toxic masculinity. That is teaching a son to not surrender to his fear and panic. That there are better alternatives than feeding on one's emotions; she's teaching him strong male traits and moving him in a path away from feminism. ganso_bum • 15 points • 1 April, 2018 01:39 AM Toxic Masculinity is enforced and rewarded by women, ergo men use toxic masculinity in order to prove themselves the most masculine of men. Eventually if you treat someone like a social reject for long enough, they'll join with people who don't treat them as such, even if they're enemies of normal society, because normal society never treated them well anyways. You reap what you sow.

crackrocksteady7 • 5 points • 1 April, 2018 04:24 AM

You reap what you sow.

yup. all this stuff is just men reasserting why you dont fuck with em

[deleted] • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 01:43 AM

Eventually if you treat someone like a social reject for long enough, they'll join with people who don't treat them as such, even if they're enemies of normal society, because normal society never treated them well anyways.

But then that has to do with, hence, ideology, and being driven toward an ideology, and not masculinity. In theory, there are much more viable options for frustrated white men, like moving to SE Asia.

ganso_bum • 4 points • 1 April, 2018 01:48 AM It's not ideology, it's "who treats me well and rewards me and who treats me like shit." Really only a small minority are true-believers, the rest are there because it offers them money/brotherhood/a better life than what the normies are offering.

MisterJose • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 04:28 AM

Eventually if you treat someone like a social reject for long enough, they'll join with people who don't treat them as such, even if they're enemies of normal society, because normal society never treated them well anyways.

OK yeah I can't put it better than that. www.TheRedArchive.com Page 25 of 45 rainisthelife • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 02:44 AM Evidence of the male tendency to blame women for why they're shitty. Male hypoagency is perverse throughout this thread.

ganso_bum • 2 points • 2 April, 2018 03:18 PM Women incentivize terrible behaviour.

rainisthelife • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 05:18 PM And all the terrible behavior that RP whines about regarding women, is because men incentivize it. So really, I don’t see what all the fuss is about.

ganso_bum • 2 points • 2 April, 2018 05:20 PM Women are the choosers and the gatekeepers, that means they're the ones incentivizing and okay- ing that behaviour.

rainisthelife • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 05:47 PM Women are the choosers and the gatekeepers for sex. Men are the gatekeepers for commitment. As they choose shitty woman to commit to, just because she’s hot, and you ignore plain Jane, you’re incentivizing shitty behavior.

ganso_bum • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 05:47 PM Plain Jane has problems finding men she wants to commit to, she doesn't have problems finding men who want to commit.

rainisthelife • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 05:58 PM Most of the women that men complain about not giving them the time of day or treating them shitty, are women that are almost always out of their leagues. It’s not that these men literarily have no one responding to them, they just focus on the hotter ones and don’t like the kind of women that do pay them attention.

ganso_bum • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 06:00 PM And meanwhile, Plain Jane has men interested in her, but they're below her league, so she doesn't give them the time of day, thereby incentivizing those men to act like the men she's actually paying attention to.

rainisthelife • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 06:05 PM Same for men incentivizing women with shitty behaviors. You reap what you sow.

[deleted] • 0 points • 1 April, 2018 09:15 AM

Masculinity is enforced and rewarded by women, ergo men use masculinity in order to prove themselves the most masculine of men.

Fix it for ya.

BiggerDthanYou • 0 points • 1 April, 2018 09:57 AM www.TheRedArchive.com Page 26 of 45 How do women reward toxic masculinity? Note: I'm not asking how women reward masculinity. I'm specifically asking how they reward toxic masculinity.

Virtue_Signaler • 1 points • 1 April, 2018 11:50 AM [recovered] Many ways, actually. Some single mommies choose to have kids with deadbeat dads who don't even bother raising the children they have with other women. This is how you end up passing on the genes of men like this dipshit. Also, convicts have more children than average(and with more women too). Not to mention that many women nowadays choose to have children with men without obtaining commitment first. Yet a boy who grows up in a single parent household has a has a higher likelihood of committing rape or ending up in prison.

BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 12:35 PM So some women have kids with deadbeat fathers. But how did they specifically reward toxic gender norms that dictate how men should be?

GenieGenius • 3 points • 1 April, 2018 12:48 PM* You're joking right? Women overwhelmingly prefer to mate with arrogant, confrontative, muscular, and unfaithful men. According to this study by the American Psychological Association:

Relative to women low in conception risk, those high in conception risk particularly preferred as short-term mates men who appeared more confrontative, arrogant, muscular, socially respected, and physically attractive. When high in conception risk, women were also more attracted to men who were viewed as lower on faithfulness as short-term mates.

You heard that right. Women are more attracted to men who they think are unfaithful.

We also tested these effects while statistically controlling for two behavioral display > indicators examined by Gangestad et al. (2004), Social Presence and Direct Intrasexual Competitiveness. In most instances, interactions remained significant or neared significance, indicating that the effects reported here are not redundant with the effects reported previously. For confrontativeness, arrogance, faithfulness, and muscularity, ts = 3.13 (df = 7986), 2.64 (df = 8081), -2.27 (df = 8057), and 1.85 (df = 7957), respectively, all ps < .041. For social respect, t(7927) = 1.51 (p = .081). For physical attractiveness, the effect dropped to non-significance. t(7925) = 1.09, ns. Women rely on behavioral information when evaluating the attractiveness of men. The results suggest that fertile women are particularly attracted to these components of physical attractiveness.

What this quote is saying is that even while controlling for two big traits that were found attractive in a previous study (Social Presence and Direct Intrasexual Competitiveness), the traits in this study were still significant and the one that was most significant was social respect (p = 0.081).

confrontativeness: 3.13 arrogance: 2.64 muscularity: 1.85 faithfulness: -2.27

http://archive.is/ARKof Womens standards of attractiveness do not change across the cycle in general for all mate traits. Standards associated with particular traits perceived systemically change. This pattern is consistent with the good genes hypothesis. This hypothesis however makes an > even more specific prediction. about www.TheRedArchive.com Page 27 of 45 which male traits should be most attractive to fertile > women. Fertile women should be especially drawn to men who possess traits typically values > in short term mates. Figure 1 shows the results of these tests. As can be seen, the extent to which male traits > were preferred in short-term mating contexts strongly predicted the extent to which this > was particularly true of fertile versus infertile women. indeed the correlation is close to > perfect .93. http://archive.is/lNvTs Basically, women love to fuck assholes who exhibit toxic masculinity.

BiggerDthanYou • 0 points • 1 April, 2018 01:41 PM Yet it didn't say that women are attracted to men who never go to a doctor, men who feel emasculated if they have to eat vegetables or men call other men who wear pink faggots, etc I was specifically asking for toxic masculinity.

MercedesBenzoAMG • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 02:29 PM You just bend the definition to suit you with each comment

GenieGenius • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 08:51 PM Is arrogant confrontative machismo NOT toxic masculinity? Lol. Women sexually select assholes and therefore reward their toxicity. There have been 5 articles linked to you already showing this.

BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 10:34 PM But I wasn't asking if they reward toxic behavior, I was specifically asking if they reward toxic masculinity. Yes they did reward his toxic behavior, but did they reward the gender norms that would encourage men to engage in such behaviors? And which gender norms dictate that men should be criminals? Toxic behavior of men isn't the same as toxic masculinity. Masculinity specifically refers to attitudes in society towards how men should behave.

GenieGenius • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 10:55 PM The gender norms of women preferring assholes and sexually selecting and therefore encouraging and rewarding their toxic behavior. I think you just don't want it to be true, but WOMEN LIKE HAVING SEX WITH ASSHOLES, there's OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE of it. There's certainly an attitude that men should be manly, ripped, and assertive. Look at literally every male superhero or video game character lead. Also, look at literally almost any villain in those same mediums. Typically, they have similar qualities and use violence to achieve an end.

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 10:08 AM

Toxic behavior of men isn't the same as toxic masculinity.

Please.

Masculinity specifically refers to attitudes in society towards how men should behave.

Keep on changing that definition will you.

www.TheRedArchive.com Page 28 of 45 BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 10:41 AM

Keep on changing that definition will you.

I haven't changed my definition just because you somehow don't understand that there's a difference between "behaviors we deem appropriate in men" and "behaviors of men".

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 06:40 PM

I haven't changed my definition

Even tho you have even after I proved you wrong on masculinity itself being a behavior something you said it wasn't.

"behaviors we deem appropriate in men" and "behaviors of men".

I understand the difference, but once again you bring up something that has no relevance here. As once again we aren't talking about men, but masculinity being a behavior. If you had reading comprehension skills you would realize this.

BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 06:48 PM

I understand the difference.

You evidently can't. Let me refresh your memory Me: "Masculinity refers to expectations on men and behaviors we deem appropriate for them." You: "Didn't you like just yesterday claimed masculinity was not deemed a behavior? So much for sticking to the definition, oh wait masculinity is a behavior." This was 12 hours ago. And if I go back in time a bit more I could find hundreds of other examples. As long as you constantly fail to understand the difference between "a behavior" and "behaviors we deem appropriate" you can't claim to be able to understand the difference.

[deleted] • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 12:11 PM You’ve seen this study: http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/why-bullies-have-more-sex

Younger adolescents lower in ‘Honesty-Humility’ may therefore strategically manipulate others in a variety of ways to obtain more sexual partners... Our findings indirectly suggest that exploitative adolescents may have more sexual partners if they are able to strategically use exploitative behaviour like bullying to target weaker individuals.

BiggerDthanYou • 0 points • 1 April, 2018 12:32 PM Those women, who are most likely bullies themselves, rewarded toxic behavior.

www.TheRedArchive.com Page 29 of 45 But how did they reward toxic masculinity specifically? How did they reward toxic gender norms towards how men should behave?

[deleted] • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 06:44 PM I think you’ll have to use your imagination.

Tedesche • 6 points • 1 April, 2018 07:41 AM* The concept of toxic masculinity doesn’t mean all masculinity is toxic—that’s why it has a qualifier. The problem with it is that—like many other feminist concepts—the label becomes looser with every passing year. Kimmel talked about things like men joining terrorist organizations and attributed it to toxic masculinity, but in the short amount of time the term has been vogue, pretty much all bad behavior from men gets categorized as stemming from toxic masculinity by feminists. The other problem is that, even though the term refers to only some types of masculinity, it foments misandry in the minds of many people who buy into it. In other words, they may say they’re only against the toxic parts of masculinity, but deep down, they really just don’t like men. Feminism is a veil for man-haters. That doesn’t make it illegitimate, but feminists have historically (and presently) been really bad about admitting it’s a problem within their movement, much less doing anything about it. Note that what feminists refer to as “toxic masculinity” exists in women too—the female gender role leads plenty of women to do things that are harmful to society—but when feminists talk about that, they refer to it as “internalized sexism.” The concept is ultimately the same, but the rhetoric betrays feminism’s bias: women are victims of patriarchy, men are patriarchal. Patriarchy harms both men and women in the feminist view, but men are the primary supporters of patriarchy, and thus part of the problem. So, they’re not really victims, they’re just bad for themselves without realizing it. EDIT: Also, notice that they never talk about the ways in which women encourage toxic masculinity, or patriarchy for that matter. In the feminist lens, men are the oppressors, women the oppressed—not expressly, mind you, but functionally.

[deleted] • 5 points • 1 April, 2018 09:06 AM Problem is that when people say something is toxic masculinity usually it isn't even masculinity at all. It is yet another bs from bp feminists trying to blame men. There is no such thing as toxic masculinity. Most of the stuff that is called toxic isn't nmasculinity but just mere stupidity, violence etc. Not masculinity.

Tedesche • 3 points • 1 April, 2018 09:12 AM I know. Neither gender norm has anything inherently bad in it, precisely because they’re idealistic. This is just another way feminists have invented to attack men and blame bad things that happen in society on them. It’s a consequence of subscribing to their worldview, which labels men as patriarchal oppressors. When you start with that and just try to find evidence for it everywhere, you’ll inevitably find some, but it will color your view so much that you will mistake things as well. Feminism is very sexist, just in non-traditional ways.

BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 10:06 AM

Problem is that when people say something is toxic masculinity usually it isn't even masculinity at all.

www.TheRedArchive.com Page 30 of 45 Quote some examples.

It is yet another bs from bp feminists trying to blame men.

How are they blaming men? They are blaming toxic aspects of the male gender role, but that's not blaming men. That's blaming the expectations on men and the ideas how men are or how they should be. Gender norms are being upheld by society. Women are part of society. The blame falls on society therefore it doesn't fall on men solely. Men are the victims of toxic masculinity.

There is no such thing as toxic masculinity. Most of the stuff that is called toxic isn't nmasculinity but just mere stupidity, violence etc. Not masculinity.

But they aren't saying "violence is toxic masculinity", but "the idea that men are inherently violent or that they should be violent is toxic masculinity".

[deleted] • 3 points • 1 April, 2018 11:35 AM

Quote some examples.

half of your posts

the idea that men are inherently violent

which is claimed here on PPD and by feminists elsewhere all the time. Funny how you now reject this idea that men are violent.

they should be violent

uhmm... who claims that?

[deleted] • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 09:24 AM

The concept of toxic masculinity doesn’t mean all masculinity is toxic

Even tho it does.

The problem with it is that—like many other feminist concepts—the label becomes looser with every passing year.

Not just looser but less academic. When toxic masculinity was first coined it was on an academic level and that rigid in meaning. It has since changed from basically meaning hypermasculinity as being toxic to masculinity itself is being toxic. You can claim all you want that toxic masculinity doesn't mean all of masculinity is toxic but by your own admittance it has essentially become so.

Also, notice that they never talk about the ways in which women encourage toxic masculinity, or patriarchy for that matter. In the feminist lens, men are the oppressors, women the oppressed—not expressly, mind you, but functionally.

That would mean holding women well responsible and we can't have that now. This stems from men are evil and women are good.

Tedesche • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 09:34 AM

You can claim all you want that toxic masculinity doesn’t mean all of masculinity is toxic but by

www.TheRedArchive.com Page 31 of 45 your own admittance it has essentially become so.

We aren’t disagreeing.

BiggerDthanYou • 0 points • 1 April, 2018 08:18 AM

Also, notice that they never talk about the ways in which women encourage toxic masculinity, or patriarchy for that matter. In the feminist lens, men are the oppressors, women the oppressed—not expressly, mind you, but functionally.

But there are articles about how mothers for example can raise their son without toxic masculinity. All the other articles that are about getting rid of toxic masculinity it are like "we need to stop shaming men for expressing feelings" which obviously also tells women to stop doing that. And "patriarchy has no gender" is how they describe that it's not just the actions of men, but all of society that is responsible for patriarchy.

Tedesche • 5 points • 1 April, 2018 08:32 AM

But there are articles about how mothers for example can raise their son without toxic masculinity.

And how many of them encourage them to make sure their sons have a good father figure in their lives? Those articles are always about instilling feminist values in boys from an early age.

All the other articles that are about getting rid of toxic masculinity it are like “we need to stop shaming men for expressing feelings” which obviously also tells women to stop doing that.

No, there are plenty of articles out there blaming everything from gun violence to homophobia on toxic masculinity. And the articles that talk about the need for men to express their feelings more get the issue wrong: men have no problems expressing their feelings and society lets them just fine; the problem is that men are not allowed to ask for help, and are expected to solve their own problems. What feminists want is for men to be more like women. And while you’re right that the advice of “don’t shame men for expressing their feelings” is gender neutral, they have written extensively about how men reinforce toxic masculinity, but not women. Stop pretending there’s no bias here.

And “patriarchy has no gender” is how they describe that it’s not just the actions of men, but all of society that is responsible for patriarchy.

As I’ve already said, feminism isn’t expressly misandrist—it’s functionally so. Everything it considers bad get a label with “man” in it somehow. It isn’t explicitly about hating men, but it foments misandry all the same.

BiggerDthanYou • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 09:28 AM

And how many of them encourage them to make sure their sons have a good father figure in their lives? Those articles are always about instilling feminist values in boys from an early age.

The importance of male role models is usually mentioned though. https://www.romper.com/p/9-ways-to-raise-your-son-without-toxic-masculinity-37717

Siebel Newson, founder and CEO of The Representation Project, which uses film and media as catalysts for cultural transformation, told CNN, "We have to redefine healthy masculinity for our boys to include empathy, emotion, care, and compassion," she said. "And we have to model it, www.TheRedArchive.com Page 32 of 45 challenging unhealthy dominant norms in public culture and daily life." Give your son as many examples of men living this definition, whether they are in his life or heroes he can look up to in society and works of fiction. The more examples, the better.

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/upshot/how-to-raise-a-feminist-son.html

Boys are particularly responsive to spending time with role models, even more than girls, research shows. There is growing evidence that boys raised in households without a father figure fare worse in behavior, academics and earnings. One reason, according to the economists David Autor and Melanie Wasserman, is they do not see men taking on life’s responsibilities. “Put good men in the space of your son,” Mr. Porter said. that. No, there are plenty of articles out there blaming everything from gun violence to homophobia on toxic masculinity. And the articles that talk about the need for men to express their feelings more get the issue wrong: men have no problems expressing their feelings and society lets them just fine; the problem is that men are not allowed to ask for help, and are expected to solve their own problems. What feminists want is for men to be more like women.

Well but that's one of the main problems of toxic masculinity https://www.refinery29.com/2018/02/191050/florida-parkland-school-shooting-toxic-masculinity?bu cketed=true

"We socialize healthy, normal boys to 'stand on their own two feet' for fear that otherwise they won't be real boys ... They're taught not to tell anyone when they feel pain, because they should be stoic, and they certainly shouldn't cry." Also troubling, according to McLaughlin, is the fact that mental illness is being used as a main reason for these events. "The vast majority of people in this country who suffer from mental illness just suffer. They need help and support," she tells Refinery29.

http://www.lovemeloveyou.org.au/blog/the-impact-of-toxic-masculinity-on-mens-health/

Traditional notions of masculinity often categorise it as a weakness if a man were to acknowledge that he has a health problem, and that it is not ok to talk about it or take action. For this reason, men are often leaving it until crisis point to seek assistance for their mental health issues and are more likely to engage in risky behaviours that may be harmful in the long run.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2018/02/19/problem-toxic-masculinity-not-mental-illness/

Even those men who might be suffering from mental illness are unlikely to seek out counseling because it is often stigmatized as “weak” for men to seek out help and admit vulnerability. Among those who do make it into an therapist’s office or mental health program, domestic abusers are notoriously resistant to treatment protocols.

http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Toxic_masculinity

Emasculation: the idea that there is a range of feminine interests and activities a Real Man would not hold, and that disprove a man's masculinity regardless of his other actions: needing help

It's really hard to find one that doesn't mention that the problem is that men aren't allowed to ask for help. www.TheRedArchive.com Page 33 of 45 As I’ve already said, feminism isn’t expressly misandrist—it’s functionally so. Everything it considers bad get a label with “man” in it somehow. It isn’t explicitly about hating men, but it foments misandry all the same.

Men labeled it "toxic masculinity" though. It's a concept that was invented by the Mythopoetic Men's Movement

[deleted] • 4 points • 1 April, 2018 09:34 AM Oh so it's our fault. Once again! Wow, maybe for starters then do not use such stupid label at all? I mean, it is hard to udnerstand what you want to achieve here by telling that "men invented this label". So what? What does it prove? Its righteousness? It is stupid label. Label is toxic itself. Drop it.

rainisthelife • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 02:34 AM This is obviously a very disingenuous comment. Especially because men blame women for creating and using the toxic masculinity label, and now that you realize that its men that actually came up with the label, you're upset that we're pointing it out because men are obviously at fault here. You want him to hush about the fact that its men that created the label, yet it was all to easy for you to pile on the blame on women when you thought that it was feminism that created it. What we want to "achieve" is the fact that a lot of the things that you assume feminism created were actually created by men. Stop blaming feminism for things that men create and encourage themselves. If anyone is facilitating misandry or toxic masculinity, it really is you lot.

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 03:49 AM Nobody cares. I care only if a tool is true it not. Not his origin. Try again to come up with an argument.

rainisthelife • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 04:24 AM Translation: Men hate it when something is obviously their fault and will try to place the blame on women. Men are perpetual victims.

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 04:28 AM So now you claim majority of men created this label? Even more disingenuous.

rainisthelife • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 05:23 AM Yes they did. The only disingenuous thing here is your tendency to push the blame to women.

BiggerDthanYou • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 09:54 AM

Oh so it's our fault. Once again! Wow, maybe for starters then do not use such stupid label at all?

Is a label stupid just because a few outliers don't understand words?

I mean, it is hard to udnerstand what you want to achieve here by telling that "men invented this label". So what? What does it prove? www.TheRedArchive.com Page 34 of 45 That it wasn't feminists who "label everything bad after men".

[deleted] • 6 points • 1 April, 2018 10:02 AM

Is a label stupid just because a few outliers don't understand words?

because the label is toxic.

That it wasn't feminists who "label everything bad after men".

nobody cares since feminists are the ones using it.

rainisthelife • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 02:38 AM Funny how now "nobody cares" about where the label came from when they realize that it was men that actually started it. Evidence that men are just really perpetual victims that like to push the blame on women and cover up areas where they are at fault.

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 03:48 AM No, it was from my start, my claim that feminists use this label, not "those men who created it". Who are they? Why they would matter if they do not use it and nobody heard of them?

MercedesBenzoAMG • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 02:31 PM

don't understand words

You're at it again! Is this seriously the pinnacle of your debating ability? Accusing all detractors of being illiterate?

Tedesche • 5 points • 1 April, 2018 09:44 AM Everything you quoted was examples of feminists saying masculinity is toxic and needs changing, so be careful about what male role models you provide your son. So, you’re half-right, but still missing the point: yes, they say boys need good male role models, but it’s in the context of saying much of masculinity is bad. Men and boys are not suffering today due to “toxic masculinity,” that’s just a bit of feminist misandry; in most cases they’re suffering from societal neglect (education) and a lack of masculinity (fatherlessness). And I’m aware of where the term comes from. They were still feminists.

[deleted] • 4 points • 1 April, 2018 09:25 AM

But there are articles about how mothers for example can raise their son without toxic masculinity.

Ya by raising their son without any masculinity which only harms him.

"patriarchy has no gender"

Said no feminist ever. oihaoerhg • 5 points • 1 April, 2018 04:25 AM www.TheRedArchive.com Page 35 of 45 I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that most of this kind of violence comes from sexual frustration and that women experience this far less than men so therefore do not have any pent up rage in the same capacity. The sexually frustrated also desire to prove themselves. Women don't need to prove themselves for sex. Extreme violence is a way for these men to prove they were wrongly put in the undesirables category.

[deleted] • 3 points • 1 April, 2018 04:54 AM

The sexually frustrated also desire to prove themselves.

Data shows 20% of men are virgins throughout college. Why do you think most men who are sexually frustrated are not becoming terrorists?

ganso_bum • 6 points • 1 April, 2018 05:47 AM

college

Because they still haven't completely failed with women yet, becau$e women $tart to like men more a$ they got older after college.

[deleted] • 4 points • 1 April, 2018 09:37 AM I see what you did here..

oihaoerhg • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 03:59 PM Do they really actually like you more or would it be the same motivation as me bumming off some rich woman?

ganso_bum • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 05:32 PM A little of both

oihaoerhg • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 05:44 PM What makes you think that it's beyond the motivation of me bumming off a rich woman?

ganso_bum • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 05:46 PM Women care about and are attracted to status, men don't. So a dude with a college degree making money will have some degree of status, so the same woman who wouldn't give the time of day to the same man when he was younger might be attracted to him when he's older because of it.

oihaoerhg • 3 points • 1 April, 2018 05:38 AM That's where the ideological component comes in I'd say. It depends on how they conceptualize their virginity. If you've got a guy who thinks "Hey, porn is better anyway." He's not as likely to become a terrorist as someone who feels robbed of their sexuality, or someone who sees porn as indirectly cucking yourself.

[deleted] • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 05:46 AM

He's not as likely to become a terrorist as someone who feels robbed of their sexuality, or someone who sees porn as indirectly cucking yourself.

But even so there is still trips abroad for prostitutes, I mean seriously i don't see how most sexually frustrated guys would resort to extremism. www.TheRedArchive.com Page 36 of 45 [deleted] • 3 points • 1 April, 2018 01:46 PM

I mean seriously i don't see how most sexually frustrated guys would resort to extremism.

There is a fine line between blow jobs and blowing people up with a fucking hand grenade.

[deleted] • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 09:38 AM I don't either but it is way better explanation. And I think in some cases it is true. But not all or majority..

KrispyMcSockington • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 10:36 AM It's not just terrorism. The military promised men that they'd get women in exchange for violence. When a nation is at war and they need more cannon fodder, they target the desperate and lowest rungs of society. All you need are some social outcasts, angry enough or desperate enough to try it and you have a warband ready to rape and pillage. Content, well adjusted people with plenty of resources and a decent education don't seek war. The softer a nation gets, the more anti violence it becomes.

crackrocksteady7 • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 02:15 PM Same reason theyre virgins, theyre feminine pussies scared of conflict

[deleted] • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 09:19 AM Would say your kinda right with the sexual frustration. Its more coming from men not able to express their emotions openly without shame but as well as able to form friendships with people. As men are often not push to be isolated when it comes to having friends while women are pushed to have as many friends as possible.

ThomFromVeronaBeach • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 10:14 AM There are plenty of counterexamples to your theory. In many African-American communities the male/female ratio is seriously skewed because so many men are in jail. The remaining men have plenty of choice but no one would call those communities non-violent. On the other hand the ratio is skewed the other way in China. As a result of the one child policy, and a widespread preference for male children, a lot of men can't get a partner. But no one would say that this has caused any large issues with violence in Chinese society.

YetAnotherCommenter • 4 points • 1 April, 2018 10:42 AM Masculinity probably has something to do with it, but here's the problem... Traditional masculinity is to some extent transcultural. So if traditional masculinity caused terrorism and violent extremism we would expect the rates of terrorism and violent extremism to be more or less equal. Since this is obviously untrue, the only reasonable position to take is that there are many other factors at play here. Ideology and religion are two of them. I mean, compare rates of terrorism committed by Hindu Indians to the rates of Pakistani Muslims... I think ethnically speaking they're relatively similar groups, but are divided by religion. So biology is held generally constant, religion/culture is not. In the pre-Modi days, there was a huge difference. Post-Modi the difference is still there to a meaningful degree (if less than previously). Kimmel is a moron and should be ignored. He sometimes gets a few tiny things right but then immediately goes to blame men, blame all men, blame maleness, and absolves women of any blame for anything that any man www.TheRedArchive.com Page 37 of 45 ever does.

Pope_Lucious • 8 points • 1 April, 2018 03:11 AM Men ARE more violent. Does anyone honestly believe otherwise?

MisterJose • 6 points • 1 April, 2018 04:31 AM For the most part. OTOH men also bond with other men in a way women don't. Ask people who've worked with male and female athletes, fighters, etc. There's also the trope of how men fight for dominance, and women fight to the death. Also, women are domestic abusers at a rate higher than you'd think given the national conversation.

Pope_Lucious • 3 points • 1 April, 2018 06:37 AM Yes. Most domestic violence is mutual. But men commit violent crimes at much higher rates. Men have 10X the amount of testosterone on average. This gives them focus and drive, but also aggression. And misplaced aggression is violence.

[deleted] • 3 points • 1 April, 2018 03:31 AM I think your missing the argument, It's more along the lines of the desire to become masculine contributing to the rise of terrorism. Last I checked he guys at 24 hour fitness and conspiring to join ISIS......

Pope_Lucious • 3 points • 1 April, 2018 03:39 AM It’s bad ideologies leveraging masculinity. Nothing good happens without masculinity. Nothing bad or violent happens without masculinity.

TheGreasyPole • 5 points • 1 April, 2018 08:22 AM Well it's definitely related to maleness, if not necessarily masculinity. Men are prone to this sort of stuff. Basically, men are highly variable in how they reproduce. A small number do so a lot, a vast bulk in the middle do so a normal amount, a small number at the bottom do not do so at all in roughly20:60:20 proportions. This is in contrast to females that are a LOT less variable. This has built into men who find themsleves in that bottom 20% a genetic propensity to "do something crazy and dangerous" to try and turn the situation around to gain status. It's called "running amok" after the malasian word "amok" which describes a young and socially excluded male who picks up a machete and kills a bunch of people. In their situation (where they're not going to breed anyway) this massive risk, possible reward scenario is favoured against just rubbing along and not breeding. So men "went amok" in the malasian villages.... the same men in the contemporary US run amok, by shooting up a school, or blowing up a black church.... the same men in the contemporary middle east join ISIS... it's all from the same root. Young men, who aren't going to get far playing "the normal game" who as a result try to create status in a murderous "blaze of glory". Thats where the incentive basically comes from. It's not masculinity. It's just young disenfranchised men trying to bust out of the hole they are in some way, www.TheRedArchive.com Page 38 of 45 anyway, and their genetic drives start to support this kind of hyper-aggressive hyper-murderous behaviour to do so. Thats basically the scinetific explanation anyway... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Running_amok

Running amok, sometimes referred to as simply amok or gone amok,[1] also spelled amuk, from the Malay[2] and Indonesian languages,[3] is "an episode of sudden mass assault against people or objects usually by a single individual following a period of brooding that has traditionally been regarded as occurring especially in Malay culture but is now increasingly viewed as psychopathological behavior".[4] The syndrome of "Amok" is found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV TR).[5] crackrocksteady7 • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 04:19 AM the feminine ones make memes about killing people and post em online

What are your thoughts on this article? toxic masculinity did nothing wrong CMV the_calibre_cat • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 06:51 PM It's the usual leftist drivel. I do think masculinity is a required component of violence, women haven't started revolutions.

[deleted] • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 10:36 AM Humans are violent. Including women.

Ordinate1 • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 08:36 PM Isn't that the same guy, Kimmel, who made himself look like an idiot in The Red Pill movie?

AutoModerator[M] • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 01:34 AM Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.

For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.

If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.

OP you can choose your own flair according to these guidelines., just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion! I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Atlas_B_Shruggin • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 01:35 AM masculinity is terrorism and violence

[deleted] • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 01:37 AM www.TheRedArchive.com Page 39 of 45 masculinity is terrorism and violence

So then femininity is manipulation and hypergamy right?

Atlas_B_Shruggin • 0 points • 1 April, 2018 01:38 AM yes?

[deleted] • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 01:38 AM Not sure if your being sarcastic.

Atlas_B_Shruggin • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 01:40 AM nope

[deleted] • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 01:41 AM Why aren't most men committing terrorist acts though?

[deleted] • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 04:21 AM To much to lose

[deleted] • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 09:26 AM Most men aren't violent or terrorist.

crackrocksteady7 • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 04:26 AM no its programming and being passive aggressive

Atlas_B_Shruggin • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 04:28 AM Lol ifelsedowhile • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 02:04 AM I was looking at the comments: is the WP one of those neo-leftist rags? The kind of rhetoric Kimmel is peddling, it's usually destroyed in ideologically more neutral environments.

Wallstreet3 • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 04:16 AM Nothing exists in a vacuum. Toxic Masculinity exists as a response to an existant stimuli. How about deal with that stimuli?

despisedlove2 • 3 points • 1 April, 2018 08:53 AM You mean, like toxic femininity?

Entropy-7 • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 07:19 AM It seems like Maslow turned on his head. Some guys will give up on physical and security needs in search of belonging, esteem and self actualization. Masculinity has a role in that biology and social programming seek those things in terms of adventure, danger, and violence/competition. However, you can't discount the role of ideology. The Boston Marathon Bomber probably didn't have problems with women given how much of a jailhouse heartthrob he became, so ideology was in play.

www.TheRedArchive.com Page 40 of 45 But really, how many guys in the west actually go all jihadi? Lots of marginalized guys are happy enough to have their 24th level wizard slay orcs rather than getting a gun and slaying people IRL.

SergantCat296 • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 08:07 AM I don't think ideology is the main driver for extremism or immoral actions, I think it is a mostly egoistical motive. Men that are not able to fit into society to have a good status are trying to get a head somehow. You can either join an extremist groupe to find peers and a social cycle valueing you, or you could commit crimes start selling drugs to financially get a head on the social ladder. concacanca • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 08:39 AM This strikes me as 50% right but focuses far too narrowly on gender at the expense of the characteristics that most other researchers would attribute to these guys. After all, the lowest common denominator being 'male' is just a step above 'human'.

PadaV4 • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 10:44 AM Lots of masculine men in my country. yet nothing is blowing up. Hmm.

ContrasexualWoman • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 11:48 AM As soon as I saw the name Michael Kimmel, I knew it would be misandric. goatismycopilot • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 12:20 PM With a few exceptions most men who tip over in violent isms are from the working classes who have been eviscerated by a lack of job opportunities. I think Kimmel missed an opportunity to talk about class because he is American and Americans don't talk about class. I live in MAGA country, I do not agree with the conclusions but the only working class men who do not end up working a crap job at Walmart either hit the recruiters office after high school, manage to start a small one or two man business, or are steered towards skilled trades. Good industrial working class jobs are not coming back. Those jobs were usually unionized and everybody hates unions in America, so it isn't happening.

1UPZ__ • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 12:21 PM Why would they allow a woman write an article blaming masculinity as cause of terrorism.. WTF. Do they really want a society with feminine men carrying their partner's hand bags while they shop?... with that fake smile, tight fitting polo short on their narrow shoulders and svelte fragile bodies? Then go with them to have soy latte and talk about cheese and wine? What is this... why are they fighting to get rid of masculinity?

crackrocksteady7 • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 02:09 PM

why are they fighting to get rid of masculinity?

Because as long as masculinity exists they know masculine men own their ass daveofmars • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 09:36 PM Even though "toxic masculinity" is a can of worms that I'm not going to open, they are more or less right. Men are found at all the extremes because men can afford to be at the extremes. We take risks. We're willing to fight for what we believe in. We're even willing to die for it. This can be channeled to positive change or destructive change. www.TheRedArchive.com Page 41 of 45 I wonder why people think ISIS or the alt-right are such an enigma - They're not. You have young men with no wives or girlfriends and nothing to look forward to in the future, but they know how to destroy things and so they'll be captured by ideologies and religions that destroy things because doing so gives them purpose and meaning. 'Cause I'll tell you one thing: guys with a good job, a nice wife and 2-3 kids aren't going to join a terrorist group. I see PC culture, #metoo and 4th wave feminism making the problem worse because it creates divisions between the sexes and especially feminism is making a continually-growing list of things men shouldn't do and ever- increasing punishments for those infractions so that young men don't have the opportunity of getting a decent partner without going through enormous effort and personal anxiety, and yet these people wonder where the extremists are coming from?

[deleted] • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 10:43 PM

I wonder why people think ISIS or the alt-right are such an enigma - They're not. You have young men with no wives or girlfriends and nothing to look forward to in the future, but they know how to destroy things and so they'll be captured by ideologies and religions that destroy things because doing so gives them purpose and meaning.

But this requires an ENORMOUS leap in logic and information, i mean you would have to prove these men aren't joining terrorist organizations due to political beliefs or a distaste for American intervention in the middle east. I mean, lets put another example. The herbivore men of Japan. They also don't have a family, good job, or purpose. Yet they aren't joining terrorist organizations....

daveofmars • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 10:53 PM Extremism has many, many forms, and the herbivore men are certainly extreme in their own right even though they're not violent. All I mean by extreme is that men go to the margins of society to form beliefs that are radically different from the majority. It doesn't matter to me personally if they're a Brony or a neo-Nazi even though they're radically different groups. Something has still pushed them to the fringes, or to put it a different way: something about the fringe has attracted them to it.

KikiYuyu • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 11:00 AM My thoughts are it's another piece blaming men for the circumstance of their birth. People like this hide behind numbers. This is no different that a racist using crime statistics to excuse his hateful views. analt223 • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 02:35 PM The problem is the loneliness society that is forming in the west + combined with the fact that women say they want to end gender roles but individually still want a a man whose tall, makes good money, popular, some muscle, etc. AKA a patriarchy ta1901 • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 05:17 PM There are parts of masculinity that can be improved, and some parts that are good. Using a minority of men in the world as evidence is pretty biased. Most men are decent, as are most women. I'm not saying they're perfect, I'm saying they aren't totally crazy. IMO this is not an issue of testosterone, it's an issue that someone might have a mental illness perhaps brought on by some type of abuse. Some people are just more likely to get all riled up without thinking, and join some extremist club as a way to lash out at society they perceive as wrong. www.TheRedArchive.com Page 42 of 45 For Kimmel, a sociologist at Stony Brook University in New York

Oh gosh, I thought you were talking about Jimmy Kimmel, the talk show host.

HalfysReddit • 1 point • 2 April, 2018 08:04 PM IMO it's tangential. There is something about the male sex that lends itself to extreme behavior. It stands to reason that of all the people who have any reason to be motivated into terroristic acts, it would be a majority of men who reach that threshold of motivation to actually join some sort of adversarial group. lost_jellyfish • 1 points • 1 April, 2018 02:21 AM [recovered] There are two people in this article. Michael Kimmel and his associates. Somenone who has substantial direct experience and success de-escalating hate group members. And the book reviews author of the article is Dina Temple-Raston who is a journalist for the Washington Post. The words in your quotes are her words, not his. For example

He believes that gender, specifically masculinity, is both “the psychological inspiration” that sends young men into these groups “and the social glue that keeps them involved.” are her words wrapped around partial phrases from the experienced activists. She doesn't seem to have any specific expertise to think her words have much value. She's just someone who sits behind a keyboard. A thorough read of the article suggests Dina Temple-Raston is misrepresenting what Michael Kimmel is trying to say. It looks like journo agenda pushing disguised as a book review attempting to piggyback on someone else's credibity. There's a serious discussion to be had around violence and masculinity, but this article is a joke of a starting point.

[deleted] • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 02:32 AM

Dina Temple-Raston is misrepresenting what Michael Kimmel is trying to say.

Why do you believe this is the case? She is the one titling the article.

lost_jellyfish • 1 points • 1 April, 2018 02:57 AM [recovered] Because when you quote someone, but use bits of their words and then inject your own sentences in between its usually because you're trying to change what they say. Especially when you're journalist trained in getting quotes and have an entire book you could take paragraphs from. If I went through your entire post history and quoted you with something like

mittenmaster0 "often state[s] on this sub that" he believes one should "categorize all of masculinity as harmful"

you'd call me a disingenuous liar. Journalists can be more sophisticated about it, but the behaviour is the same. When someone is chopping and editing sentences like that you can't take them seriously. And if they put their own statements in their you have to assume they are saying it, not the person they are

www.TheRedArchive.com Page 43 of 45 pseudo quoting.

[deleted] • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 03:14 AM

Because when you quote someone, but use bits of their words and then inject your own sentences in between its usually because you're trying to change what they say. Especially when you're journalist trained in getting quotes and have an entire book you could take paragraphs from.

But she isn't doing that. His book is literally titled "Healing from hate: how young men get into, and out of violent extremism". That's his choice in title. Moreover, descriptions of the book through many, many websites say the exact same thing.

By the time Matthias was in seventh grade, he felt he’d better belong to some group, lest he be alone and vulnerable. The punks and anarchists were identifiable by their tattoos and hairstyles and music. But it was the skinheads who captured his imagination. They had great parties, and everyone seemed afraid of them. “They really represented what it meant to be a strong man,” he said. What draws young men into violent extremist groups? What are the ideologies that inspire them to join? And what are the emotional bonds forged that make it difficult to leave, even when they want to? Having conducted in-depth interviews with ex–white nationalists and neo-Nazis in the United States, as well as ex-skinheads and ex-neo-Nazis in Germany and Sweden, renowned sociologist Michael Kimmel demonstrates the pernicious effects that constructions of masculinity have on these young recruits. Kimmel unveils how white extremist groups wield masculinity to recruit and retain members—and to prevent them from exiting the movement. Young men in these groups often feel a sense of righteous indignation, seeing themselves as victims, their birthright upended in a world dominated by political correctness. Offering the promise of being able to "take back their manhood,"

https://www.ucpress.edu/book.php?isbn=9780520292635

Journalists can be more sophisticated about it, but the behaviour is the same. When someone is chopping and editing sentences like that you can't take them seriously.

Yea, nice try but that's not being done here. Your desperately trying to claim "Distortion! Distortion!" But there is absolutely no proof of that. The author truly believes masculinity is the cause of terrorism.

lost_jellyfish • 1 points • 1 April, 2018 04:16 AM [recovered]

masculinity is the cause of terrorism

I note your unironic use of the singular. But you're doing the same thing I accused the other author of. You're putting your words in place and ignoring the original author's. But here you're so shortsighted you actually quoted the contradiction yourself.

wield masculinity to recruit and retain members

Does concrete cause bridges? Of course not. Its a resource that is wielded, shaped and used to build bridges. It makes great bridges. Its an abundant cheap, easily available material for building bridges. Many bridges are made from it. www.TheRedArchive.com Page 44 of 45 But it doesn't cause bridges. That's an absurd statement. Does masculinity cause terrorism. Of course not. That's an absurd statement. If you eliminated/banned concrete would it stop bridges? Of course not. Can you build bridges without concrete? Yes, but its more difficult and expensive because its such an ideal material for bridges. So you'd have less bridges and they would not be as good. Masculinity is an ideal tool for anyone trying to create violence. But its not THE CAUSE. Since masculinity is THE CAUSE of terrorism, perhaps banning it would stop terrornism? Makes sense, since its THE CAUSE. But of course that would not work since it wouldn't stop the female terrorists. Were the Black Widows in Chechnya driven by secret testicles they grew after their husbands were killed? Or are the Tamil Black Tiger suicide bombers really mostly transgender women acting on their pent up masculine pressure from a life time of pretending to be women?

[deleted] • 2 points • 1 April, 2018 04:53 AM

Its a resource that is wielded, shaped and used to build bridges.

you must have gracefully missed this part:

Michael Kimmel demonstrates the pernicious effects that constructions of masculinity have on these young recruits. Kimmel unveils how white extremist groups wield masculinity to recruit and retain members—and to prevent them from exiting the movement. Young men in these groups often feel a sense of righteous indignation, seeing themselves as victims, their birthright upended in a world dominated by political correctness. Offering the promise of being able to "take back their manhood,"

You are the one being short sighted here. Your desperately, desperately trying to parade around semantics to try and somehow ignore the title of the book and what the book is actually about. The author believes that the desire to be masculine and masculine behavior leads to violence. This is an undeniable fact and your making yourself into a fool in an attempt to challenge this.

Doom_and-Gloom • 1 point • 1 April, 2018 09:12 AM* No, the real cause of terrorism and violent extremism is sexual frustration and chronic loneliness, and until society is ready to acknowledge that (which isn't about to happen anytime soon), this shit will keep happening.

BiggerDthanYou • 0 points • 1 April, 2018 08:00 AM

So, BPers often state on this sub that "toxic masculinity" does not intend to categorize all of masculinity as harmful but only certain parts of it. However, this article may suggest otherwise

This article is about how they get radicalized by exploiting their sense of emasculation, but it makes no mention of "toxic masculinity" at all. If you want to make a point you should use an article that actually talks about "toxic masculinity".

www.TheRedArchive.com Page 45 of 45