ᯓ★

2toxisk

[sickofeverythingmale2]

I have noticed that leftist men can be more gender critical than leftist women and still get less hate.

Yup, men always get less hate. Doesn't matter what it is.

[gothra]

I’ll never forget when I was arguing with a person in favor of total prison abolition and I asked them “what about violent offenders?” And they said “Well, in a world where prisons have been abolished, we’ll have leveled the playing field and everyone will have their basic needs met, and crime won’t be as much of an issue.” And then I was like “okay. But…no. Because rich people also rape and murder, so it isn’t just a poor person thing. So what will we do about that?” And I don’t think they answered me after that. I’m ashamed to say I continued to think that the problem was that I simply didn’t understand prison abolitionists enough and that their point was right in front of me, and it would click once I finally let myself understand it. It took me a long time to realize that if something is going to make sense, it needs to make sense. If you want to turn theory into Praxis (I’m using that word right don’t correct me I’ll vomit) everyone needs to be on board, which mean it all needs to click and it needs to click fast and fucking clear. You need to turn a complex idea into something both digestible and flexible enough to be expanded upon. Every time I ask a prison abolitionist what they actually intend to do about violent crime, I get directed to a summer reading list and a BreadTuber. It’s like a sleight-of-hand trick. Where’s the answer to my question. There it is. No wait, there it is. It’s under this cup. No it isn’t. “There’s theory that can explain this better than I can.” As if most theory isn’t just a collection of essays meant to be absorbed and discussed by academics, not the average skeptic. “Read this book.” And the book won’t even answer the question. The book tells you to go ask someone else. “Oh, watch this so-and-so, she totally explains it better than me.” Why can’t you explain it at all? Why did you even bring it up if you were going to point me to someone else to give me the basics that you should probably already know? Maybe I’m just one of those crazy people who thinks that some people need to be kept away from the public for everyone’s good. Maybe that just makes me insane. Maybe not believing that pervasive systemic misogyny could be solved with a UBI and a prayer circle makes me a bad guy. But it’s not like women’s safety is a priority anyway. It’s not like there is an objective claim to be made that re-releasing violent offenders or simply not locking them up is deadly.

[a-lesbian-feminist]

I've done a lot of reading about prison abolition, particularly academic sources, and the general idea is that crimes will still happen, but the communty will essentially sort it out on their own.

A lot of prison abolition frameworks rely on what we know about how societies met their own and each others needs before currency. So, if someone needed milk, they'd take eggs from their chicken and trade it with the person who has a cow. This ensured that everyone's physical needs were usually met.

Prison abolitonists won't say it, but their idea of how rape should be handled is exactly how these early agricultural societies handled it. It was a "majority rules" system. Meaning, if the community liked the women more, the man would be ousted or punished. And if the community liked the man more, the woman would be ousted or punished.

The general goal of prison abolition is not a society in which everyone is safe and has their individual needs met. It's a society that's stable and can maintain itself, where most people have their physical needs met enough to reproduce and continue the society.

This is why they can never give you a straight answer. Because the prison abolition framework doesn't aim to abolish rape, it aims to keep it as quiet as possible. Their solution is to keep men only raping their own wives and daughters, and for those women and girls to have enough other needs met that they'll shut up about it for fear of not having those other needs met.

Most prison abolitionists do not actually understand their framework, because they don't read the academic sources and they don't know how their ideal society would function. But the academics know exactly what it would look like, and it's a regressive society where instead of a justice system making prisons to keep the violent men contained, each household has a woman to keep that household's men contained.

If you want to know what prison abolition looks like, don't ask a prison abolitionist who says "I don't know what that would be like". Look at examples of early agricultural communities where their primary goal is survival. That's what it would look like, because in the absence of large scale people management, all of the social duties fall to women.

[countcait]

And you don't even need to go back that far. The concept of a secular "public civil force" originated in England in the 18th century. Before that, proto-police were the private hires of nobles or the church/dominant religious force, or else a part of the local military. For the vast majority of history, commoners largely settled most of their disputes among themselves, usually in a way that was heavily dependant on religious ideology. A rape victim might get community justice, but like others were saying in this thread, that depended on the standing of the rapist within the community.

Like it or not, a lot of the historical gains made for women's freedom have come from the penal system. A husband is no longer the untouchable iron fist of the law within his own home, an outside force can step in and stop him from beating his wife and children to a pulp. They can lock him away where he'll never hurt anyone again. That's revolutionary. It took until 1993 for marital rape to become illegal in the US, but it still happened. A woman can freely say no to sex with her husband and seek legal recourse if he rapes her. Again, revolutionary.

I think prison abolition is another example of far-leftists falling in love with the idea of tearing down an imperfect system without putting a single coherent thought toward the reality of rebuilding afterward.

[vigilantkilliforniakatholixxx]

[spookyshrinesage]

matriarchy is so delusional 😭😭😭😭😭 let it go bruh

[xxds8]

[1earthmother]

Beating a dead horse here, but if you needed this spelled out for you then you’re incredibly slow and naive. Femininity coaching is BS anyways but I really question the intelligence of grown women who think the man of their dreams was just hidden behind “divine feminine” tips and tricks- and that there’s this discernable pool of eligible bachelors who are emotionally intelligent providers that somehow remained unaffected by male socialization that’s out there waiting for her and other women like her.

especially because the advice borders on a badly written fiction novel. What do you mean you’re 25 years old listening to some woman talk about “tapping into your divine feminine goddess energy to attract and secure a divine masculine provider male who will always pay for dates and bills”- like what???

[pain--pilled]

men have sooo many more options than women, so many more it's not even comparable. Pretty much any woman in the world would treat a man right, worship him, be nice to him, give him at least most of what he wants, etc. 99% of the women in the world would be a good pick for any man. 99.9999% of the women in the world are a good match for a man. Like, the average woman would be a good match. Not even just the average, but literally every woman in the world who is alive, has ever lived, and will ever live besides Aileen Wurous lol. A man could pick any woman and be treated good. Also women are all male worshippers on a biological level. Whereas for women, the average man is not a good choice. 99.999% of men would be a shitty partner to any woman. It's really no wonder women are constantly competing with other women whereas men are so chill and don't really compete at all for women. Of course they don't compete, every woman is a stellar choice. They have all the time in the world, all the options in the world. Whereas 99% of women need to either accept being treated like shit, or accept being single. Bc let's be honest most women aren't attracted to other women. Also the "every woman is a good pick" only applies to men btw. No woman will treat another woman as good as she will treat a man. Even if she might pretend to at first.

[2toxisk]

[biarritzzz]

Everytime I stumble upon a video of an aggressive pittbull (pleonasm), there are always a bunch of comments insisting ‘it’s not the breed it’s the owner!’ and most of them come from women.

Women as a whole refuse to consider genetics and biology as deciding factors when it comes to violence. Why you ask? because they’re hoping men… er violent dogs can be trained out of their violent tendencies.

That’s why they love the socialization theory so much.

[tvrded]

I’ve been a bad girl daddy

Okay go kill yourself honey

[lycanemia]

[thehappysmiler]

Still feeling depersonalized lately. Investigating this feeling 🔎. Is it a problem in itself? In some belief systems its a goal in the spiritual journey to escape yourself & your ego. It feels odd. I think fear it's what makes it feel odd, maybe feeling safe while depersonalized is a tranquilizing place to be. Omg new emoji 🫯

[damhain]

hometown antique market

[sarmatka]

I often have beef with feminists because they tend to shift ALL BLAME on men.

Apparently seeing women as human beings with autonomy and brains to think for themselves is sexist.

Imagine you are a slave and you work hard everyday with other slaves but all you dream about is freedom. On the other side of the fence there is another slave but that slave talks about how it's ok to be one, how we're destined to be slaves and there is nothing we can do.

Wouldn't you in your heart at least, judge that person? If you long for freedom and feel love towards a group of people but they go against their own interest over and over again, it's hard not to resent them at times.

Having ideals for them, standards for them, hopes and dreams for them is the most humanising thing there is. Even if at times it might come across as harsh judgement or might lead to bitter dissapointment.

[sarmatka]

Radical Feminism is still too weak.

It clings to excuse of "socialisation" instead of judging women's choices as moral agents. The fact that women are moral agents makes them human so their choices just like men's choices shouldn't be beyond judgement.

Women's meekness kills women everyday, their love of comfort rather than fight for their freedom and autonomy is a perversion of nature. As by nature humans possess desire for freedom, willing subjugation, meekness and constantly avoiding conflict are humanity-denying acts.

[9e978e]

[childmagazine]

Larrabee State Park, near Bellingham, Washington, May, 1973

[blackpilledtothecore]

if women could love each other i will value friendship more

[pain--pilled]

99% of women can't love eachother not even as friends, the male worship gets in the way and prevents that. Women as a class have not learned friendship, they only know romantic love, they don't understand friendship. They don't understand what friendship is or how to be helped by it. It's like they operate based off their biological instincts, just like men operate on their biological instincts to spread their genes, except men understand friendship while women are fully stuck following their biology. Women evolved to worship men on a biological level and everything they do is to secure a male. Every "friendship" they make with other women is all at the end just trying to serve their biological drive to secure a male. You see this all the time; look at who and how women make friends with other women; it's clear there's a strategy there with the end goal being to secure a male. They only make alliances within their attractiveness rank and so that they can look attractive and appealing to men as a group of women. Their biology is not their fault, they simply evolved that way bc they were selected for and being able to have status within a group secured their survival and the survival of their offspring. But they seem unaware of it. If you think is an exaggeration just look at any average family; more often than not there's always tension between all the female family members and they're always eagerly waiting for a chance to tear down their female family members. Look at the mother in law subreddits. Full of women talking about how their mother in law hates them is always trying to cut them down. Men aren't like that towards their male relatives. There's never any major conflict between a married man and how father in law but there's ALWAYS conflict between either a mother and daughter, or a woman and her mother in law, or a woman and her aunt or insert whatever female family member here. Look at how common mothers abusing daughters are versus how rare fathers abusing specifically sons are in comparison. It happens, but it's rare in comparison and it's never over female validation when it does happen. Male validation is at the center of 99.9% of women's lives; whether it's her daughter, her mother, her sister her friend doesn't matter, male validation and the biological urge to tear other women down takes precedence. Women will invent schizo reasons for why they don't like other women, but really it's just their biology. They're clearly wired that way. Anyone who denies this clear worldwide pattern is just naive. Women will be like "oh no you don't understand, I just don't like THIS particular woman, I don't hate all other women!" But next week it'll be another woman she "just doesn't like", and then another, and then another, and then another, and then another, and it'll be every single woman she's ever met that she "just doesn't like" or "just has a problem with this particular behavior". Meanwhile that same behavior, she would adore if it was a man doing it.