"Isolation and depression- fear of reaching out" gee, i wonder why? Then again, why am i refusing to accept the wonderful paliatives offered (and paid by my pocket) by society (that will never solve the underlying issues faced my me ever)?!!!I would like to preface this by stating this post primarily refers to the mainstream usage of the term 'patriarchy', which is commonly invoked as a catch-all term with the purpose of villainizing men, painting them as inherently privileged, and absolving women of responsibility. This post is quite long-winded, and originally, I was planning to condense all the ideas and topics into a single, large section. However, I have opted against that, since it would have made it overly lengthy and discursive. The post is separated into two sections: the first, primary section — in which I present the central ideas — and the second, in which I offer additional commentary, citations, and interesting things I have come across. The second section is meant to act as supplementary work and is quite lengthy, as I went somewhat overboard.
For the past few months, I have been studying epistemological examination, and one notion that I wanted to delve into is the purported "patriarchy" — the ever-present system that is constantly thrown around to pin the blame on men, and avoid accountability on the part of women—you will see examples of that often, such as 'Who set that system up?' [1]. But the truth is, if patriarchy is everywhere, nowhere, historic, present, abstract, embodied, structural, semantic, and spiritual—then what you call patriarchy is no longer a system. It’s a theodicy. This post will likely be water to many of you, but I still felt like writing it, especially because it's a slightly more in-depth examination of this topic, specifically how the concept of "patriarchy" functions, and how it's used by the masses—not as a social theory, but as a theodicy.
To begin, in theology, a theodicy is a justification for why evil exists in a world supposedly governed by a benevolent God. It exists to preserve belief, not to explain reality—it's often illogical and requires mental gymnastics. And that’s exactly how the modern feminist idea of patriarchy functions.
The "patriarchy" is invoked as this invisible, omnipresent, male-dominated power structure that supposedly explains every "hardship" women face—which are typically made-up, exaggerated, and a result of a deliberate misrepresentation of facts and reality. But when men face disproportionate suffering? Somehow, that too is chalked up to “patriarchy”—as if men built a system to oppress themselves. This, to me, is quite frankly such a hilarious concept, and it goes to show how far they are willing to strive in an attempt to avoid accountability and pin all the blame on men. Just blame every single societal ailment on a mysterious "patriarchy" — I suppose that is much easier than addressing the detrimental problems that plague our society, most notably affecting men in particular.
Originally, patriarchy referred to systems where men held overt, legal power over women—think ancient tribes or literal male property ownership—and such systems didn't emerge with the intention of specifically oppressing anybody; it was simply how humans developed, and the system that functioned well. It was a system that also made sense from an evolutionary perspective, and from a general perspective that considers the innate advantages that women possess due to them being the selective sex, so even if we do concede a patriarchy existed, it certainly wasn't the way feminists like to portray it, and women held many advantages even within it, since human nature is inherently gynocentric. From my observations, I also came to the conclusion a form of presentism is occurring here—a projection of present ideas, beliefs, and values upon the past. Presentism essentially describes the phenomenon of fallacious application of modern lens, and a misrepresentation of the past, which inevitably leads to flawed interpretations of past systems and values. Feminist presentism assumes that modern "egalitarian" values are timeless truths, and therefore all deviation from them in the past was necessarily unjust. But historical cultures had different value systems, and their structures can only be understood relative to the constraints, threats, and technologies of the time—but I digress. The point is, today, patriarchy is a slippery term used to describe anything feminists dislike. A woman is catcalled? Patriarchy. A woman is a CEO? Tokenism—still patriarchy. A man is homeless? Patriarchy made him toxic. It’s tautological.
Now that we got the definitions and the premise out of the way—I want to present the concept of epistemological falsification, which is, as introduced by Karl Popper, the principle that a theory can be considered scientific and epistemically sound only if it is testable and potentially falsifiable through empirical observation. This means that a scientific theory must be able to be proven wrong by evidence, not just confirmed. It's a core concept in the philosophy of science, particularly in distinguishing science from non-science. In the case of the patriarchy, at least as purported by the majority of the populace—it is unfalsifiable.
Try to present any counter-evidence, and you'll get absurd mental gymnastics:
- Male Genital Mutilation is legal and normalized; female genital mutilation is outlawed globally and condemned. — "Still patriarchy; men normalized their own pain to serve toxic masculinity." [2]
- Men commit suicide at 3–4x the rate of women. — "That’s because men don’t express their emotions, which is caused by... you guessed it, patriarchy." [3, 4]
- Men make up the vast majority of the homeless. — Ignored. [5]
- Men dominate the most dangerous and underpaid jobs. — "Because they don’t let women in!" [6]
- Men get longer sentences for the same crimes, and are less likely to win custody battles. — "Well, women are better caregivers" (funny how the patriarchy is selective in empowering women only when it benefits them). [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]
- Men are more likely to be victims of violence, but get less support. — Silence. [14, 15, 16, 17]
- Asymmetrical rape laws exclude "forced to penetrate" cases. If a woman forces a man into sex, she often walks away free. — Must have been the patriarchy! [18, 19, 20, 21]
- Sexual market disparity? Women control it entirely post-sexual revolution. Hypergamy is rampant. Women chase the top percentage of men, leaving millions completely excluded and at a severe disadvantage. — "Men are entitled!"
- Women drive 80% of consumer spending through their purchasing power and influence. — "That's just because men made them care about shopping!" [22]
At this point, what would falsify the theory? Nothing. That’s the point.
The problem with the modern feminist conception of “patriarchy” is that it has devolved into a theory that absorbs counter-evidence rather than being challenged by it. Anything that is contradictory to the ideas it purports, simply transforms into evidence for it, which is illogical and preposterous. There is no imaginable state of the world that falsifies the theory. And according to Popper, that means it ceases to be science—it becomes pseudoscience.
I would also add that Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, introduced the idea of paradigms, which are dominant worldviews that define how scientists interpret data. Within a paradigm, anomalies can build up over time, but the system resists change until a paradigm shift occurs.
If we apply Kuhn’s framework here, feminism operates within a patriarchy-as-paradigm framework. Any data about gender must be filtered through it. Even when mounting anomalies appear—e.g., male suicide, sentencing disparities, educational decline in boys—the paradigm remains intact. These aren’t signs the theory is wrong; they’re interpreted as evidence that the patriarchy is just deeper, more insidious, or more internalized than we thought.
Kuhn argued that revolutions occur when the cost of ignoring anomalies exceeds the cost of changing the paradigm. But with patriarchy theory, the opposite happens: the more anomalies appear, the more elaborate the explanations become.
Imre Lakatos refined Kuhn’s ideas by describing research programs, which are theories with a “hard core” that is protected by an adjustable “protective belt” of auxiliary hypotheses.
View attachment 1475944
In a progressive program, new data leads to predictions and discoveries. In a degenerating program, data is explained away through ad hoc modifications, just to preserve the core belief.
Patriarchy theory is clearly in the degenerating phase:
When women dominate education? “Still patriarchy—schools teach girls to please authority.”
When women have more reproductive power? “It’s still patriarchy—men fear female sexuality.”
If men are structurally privileged, then they must generally benefit more than they suffer from that privilege. Yet no matter what the data shows, the hard core assumption that men created and benefit from a system that oppresses women—remains untouched. And to me, that does not look like growth; rather, it's theological preservationism masquerading as social science.
Before I move on, I'd like to analyze this from opposing viewpoints, as some may argue that I am engaging in scientism—which is, in and of itself, quite rigid, as it's a framework that argues science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. I see it as an old trope—when one's ideological framework can't meet basic evidentiary standards, accuse the critic of scientism. But the truth is, if a theory makes causal claims about society—about outcomes, distributions, structures—it is pretending to be descriptive. And once you claim to describe, you are making empirical claims. You don’t get to assert causality and then escape falsifiability. I don't necessarily believe a system must be material—but must it be coherent? Yes. If you’re calling “patriarchy” a system, and that system produces observable outcomes, then it is subject to the same scrutiny as any other causal explanation. Furthermore, if multiple frameworks claim to explain modern gender structures, we must evaluate which one has the fewest assumptions, the broadest scope, and the greatest predictive value. 'Patriarchy' increasingly requires ad hoc explanations to survive anomalies, whereas gynocentrism or evolutionary reproductive theory, offer a more parsimonious and falsifiable account.
Lastly, I would like to explain these ideas in more detail and analyze common "patriarchal" ideas—and why they fall apart under scrutiny. The truth is, there is no such thing as a patriarchy in the way it is typically portrayed. The so-called patriarchy is better understood as a manifestation of biological differences between men and women. Furthermore, as previously said, the system is better described through a gynocentric lens—one that emerges from human nature, and is amplified by social, cultural, and technological factors.
Let me explain with some examples. Feminists often criticize the objectification of women, yet men are objectified as well. It may be true that women are objectified more frequently in media and entertainment—but why is that? The answer is simple: men tend to enjoy looking at women more than women enjoy looking at men. Generally speaking, men are more visually attracted to women, which is evident in disparities in physical attractiveness ratings between genders [23]. That’s part of the reason why more men consume pornography—because they are more sexually attracted to women and often experience greater unmet sexual desire, since their access to women is typically limited unless they meet the cartoonishly high standards imposed on them. This dynamic is best explained by supply and demand. I would also add that women still consume a considerable amount of porn, especially through different forms such as erotica, which is not exempt from objectification of men and is arguably worse; they are also the primary buyers of sex toys, which are the most direct form of objectification. Moreover, other forms of objectification—such as being reduced to utility—affect men significantly more.
Now consider the question of why there aren’t more women in STEM fields. This, too, likely has biological roots. The truth is, in highly "egalitarian" and feminist countries like Sweden, where people are free to choose their educational paths, the gender gap in STEM fields is even wider than in less progressive nations. This phenomenon is known as the "gender-equality paradox" — a phenomenon that can be explained by the idea that when people are more free to choose, they follow their interests, which may be influenced by innate preferences. Needless to say, gender differences in general and specific types of intelligence are likely another contributing factor. This suggests that the differences are more biological than cultural.
Another frequently asked question is why there are fewer women in politics. A large-scale study found that women, on average, are less interested in politics than men. Interestingly, the gender gap in political interest was wider in developed, modern societies than in developing ones. This demonstrates that fewer women pursue political careers simply because they are less inclined to engage in political activity, and not because of systemic exclusion.
How the 'Patriarchy' Comes Into Play in the Context of Incels — Analysis
To illustrate the aforementioned concepts clearly and structurally, I present an infographic I came across online—one that directly pertains to the matters at hand, particularly within the context of incels. It refers to the patriarchy as a catch-all—exactly as I said—and attempts to argue much of the suffering we endure, and the views we hold, are a result of it—which is nonsensical.
View attachment 1478115
It's quite absurd and laughable, as it attempts to frame our "views" of women as ones shaped by the so-called patriarchy—a notion which is demonstrably false—since our views stem from scientific observation of human nature, and the countless bad experiences we have endured in this gynocentric society. The list of problems it presents is also ridiculous, as no rational explanation could tie those to a mysterious patriarchy, and if inquired, they would likely resort to the same tautological explanations to preserve their flawed belief, in order to absolve women of blame, and attribute it to men. Furthermore, this infographic is susceptible to the very same unfalsifiability I have previously discussed, for it attributes all ailments to a patriarchy without offering any reasonable explanation.
Now, I will structurally dismantle the ideas conveyed in this image:
1. "Incels see these as problems caused by women" — this is a blatant misrepresentation of the views we hold; the majority of us do not attribute the entirety of the blame to women—despite their responsibility for a predominant number of problems. In truth, we recognize the multifactorial nature of such problems, which emerge due to a variety of reasons, such as the inherently gynocentric nature of humans, technology, globalism, modern decadence, simps, and more. Moreover, when we do attribute blame to women—and rightfully so—we do so based on observations of their actions, as well as their direct responsibility and complicity in our suffering. If women are hypergamous, privileged, and they dismiss male suffering as irrelevant—blame will inevitably be placed upon them, and that blame would be rational, not misplaced.
2. "Pressure to be hypersexual" — this is biological reality, not an ideology imposed by men. Male sexual drive is higher on average, which is related to evolutionary factors. Moreover, this pressure is actually reinforced by women who ridicule low-status men, shame virgins, and selectively reward hypermasculine behavior in dating markets. If anything, the “pressure to be hypersexual” is part of a female-curated sexual economy, not a male-imposed one.
3. "Loneliness and isolation – not asking for help" — men didn’t sit down and decree, “Let’s suffer quietly forever.” This is a product of natural selection and social role stratification, not a conspiratorial system created to oppress women. Furthermore, all one must do is observe the behavior women exhibit when a man shows vulnerability; it typically ends with mockery, humiliation, and cruel indifference.
4. "Body image insecurities" — If they genuinely think men oppress themselves with unrealistic body standards, they are misidentifying the source of influence. Female hypergamy and mate selection are the cause, and they're not driven by the mythical "patriarchy."
5. "Lack of mental health support and resources" — who is in charge of much of the modern health and education bureaucracy? Who do politicians pander to? Women, the demographic that votes more, consumes more, and dominates sectors like psychology and education.
If we lived in a society truly run by men for male benefit, wouldn't these services be better funded and targeted toward us? Instead, men are demonized, neglected, and expected to "man up." To call a society shaped around female priorities a patriarchy is ludicrous. This is a clear case of gynocentrism.
Moving on to the bottom part:
1. "Seeing encounters with women as transactional" — this is a consequence of modern dating markets, not patriarchy. Men are not crazy to notice that effort doesn’t guarantee reciprocation, and women benefit from immense sexual choice. When you reduce men to utility, don’t act surprised when some begin to expect outcomes from that utility.
2. "Victimhood – 'I was a nice guy, hot girls are just bitches'" — true, but the part about "hot girls" is a strawman. This is a legitimate reaction to a system where men are treated as disposable unless they meet ludicrously high standards, and denied of love and pleasure because of immutable physical traits.
3. "Normalizing violence against women" — in reality, however, incels are one of the least violent groups on earth. The men most likely to normalize violence against women, and also act upon it—are the very men women flock to.
It's also worth mentioning that ironically, violence against men, whether in prisons, war, or relationships, is routinely ignored by these people; it's significantly more normalized and is often minimized. That only serves to strengthen my point—that society is gynocentric, not patriarchal. This perfectly exemplifies the paradigm entrenchment which these people engage in; they filter the data selectively in an attempt to fortify their flawed perception, and to maintain the hard core assumptions of their 'research program.'
4. "Think they’re entitled to sex just because they’re men" — another dishonest generalization. Most men don’t feel entitled to sex; they feel despair at total exclusion. There’s a difference. Furthermore, the vast number of men who attempt self-improvement disproves this notion entirely, for self-improvement is conceptually antithetical to the notion of inherent entitlement.
To conclude, this infographic demonstrates precisely the epistemological issues that I have described; it misrepresents our views, and proceeds to pin all of our problems onto a mystical force called the 'patriarchy.' In truth, however, none of these problems necessitate the existence of that system, and can be explained more parsimoniously through gynocentrism and female privilege.
The Patriarchy is a Religious Dogma
Much like how the religious explain natural disasters with “God’s mysterious plan,” feminists explain male suffering with “patriarchy hurting men too.” It’s circular, emotionally manipulative, and immune to reason. And its primary purpose is to assign the blame to men, and to free women from the burden of accountability, because if everything is the fault of the 'patriarchy' — everything is men's fault. Such logic is obviously nonsensical, even within its own framework, for it also assumes women are merely passive observers incapable of any ill—which is false. As a matter of fact, it's often women who advocate for, and instill harmful behavior in their male children—the very same behavior that contributes to our suffering, and should be labeled as 'gynocentric', not 'patriarchal'. Some may try to reconcile with the fact that women themselves support the very same structures and behaviors that are described as 'patriarchal' by attributing the blame to the patriarchy, which is tautological reasoning, again—no accountability. The whole thing is just absurd.
This idea that “patriarchy hurts men too” is the favorite feminist failsafe—as if that preserves the coherence of the theory. But this is equivalent to saying “God gives you cancer to test your faith.” It’s not a real explanation. It’s a weak reframing that allows them to claim concern while still preserving the central narrative that men are at fault.
If a theory both privileges and victimizes men—without a clear mechanism or consistent pattern—then what exactly is its predictive value?
The truth is: men hurting doesn’t falsify patriarchy in feminist eyes—in truly absurd fashion, it confirms it. That’s how you know it’s a theodicy. Every data point loops back to the same metaphysical blame.
Sometimes they do attempt to offer falsifiability to it, commonly by referring to political representation and positions of power, but that is, in a sense, an apex fallacy—as it ignores the masses of men who are treated as second class citizens. It also ignores the reality that women hold significant influence over politicians—who often cater specifically to women and their needs, as well as the fact that this disparity could also have biological and evolutionary roots. Furthermore, one should not forget that this is merely shining light on a single power structure, which is solely one among many—social, cultural, sexual, etc.
The modern feminist concept of patriarchy no longer functions as a social theory; it functions as a doctrine of collective guilt. All men are born tainted, whether they benefit from the so-called system or not. It is, in effect, a secular version of original sin: men are inherently suspect, and their very presence in the world is tied to oppression—even if they are homeless, mentally ill, or driven to suicide.
The man who works 12-hour shifts in a freezing meat-packing plant to support a family he will lose in a custody battle? Patriarchy. The boy who fails in a feminized education system designed to reward social compliance over curiosity? Patriarchy. The lonely man who will die alone, unloved, discarded by a hyper-selective sexual marketplace? Patriarchy. The woman who capitalizes on men's loneliness and exploits them through platforms such as OnlyFans? Patriarchy.
How convenient. The same invisible force oppresses women by giving them "too little", and men by giving them too much—of pain, expectation, and burden. It is a moral fail-safe, where no matter who suffers, men are to blame.
But anyone with a functioning brain knows that when a belief system becomes so elastic that it explains everything, it ceases to explain anything.
The truth is, if men actually ran society in a self-serving way—would we allow:
Ourselves to be mutilated at birth?
Ourselves to die in wars we’re drafted into while women are protected?
Ourselves to rot in prison for longer sentences?
Ourselves to be discarded in the dating market based on looks and height?
No. A system that consistently sacrifices men is not a patriarchy. It’s a gynocentric social order under the guise of a purported patriarchy.
In short, the patriarchy—at least in the way it's commonly presented—isn’t a testable, rational framework. It’s an unfalsifiable, theodical belief system designed to preserve a worldview where women are always victims and men are always to blame, regardless of reality.
And like all bad religions, it punishes heretics who point this out.
References and Appendices:
[1] While working on this post, I came across a comment section that echoes the ideas I have expressed perfectly—women and intellectually challenged animals pointing the finger of blame at the 'patriarchy' and at men. The behavior is exactly as I described: the blame is pinned on men, and women are freed of the burden of accountability. All the while, feminist ideology and so-called 'anti-patriarchal' values and actions are nothing more than gynocentrism in disguise. The poster himself fails to understand that the system in question isn’t even what he thinks it is, but the comments are the relevant part anyway.
View attachment 1479216
So, men are benefiting from MGM being legal? From being the majority of the homeless? The majority of suicides? Being disadvantaged in courts? Facing sexual market disparities? Draft laws? Workplace deaths? Custody settlements? And women being responsible for 85% of consumer spending? That totally sounds like a system that benefits men.
The system does not benefit men in any apparent way, and if probed, she would either resort to tautological reasoning or apex fallacies. In fact, I attempted to confront her—and that’s exactly what she did. She also outright denied statistics that contradicted her dogma.
View attachment 1479218
It's hilarious how the existence of a patriarchy is automatically assumed yet never questioned. Discarding that flawed assumption, one must understand that women are not merely passive observers incapable of inflicting deleterious harm; in fact, they are dangerous creatures who possess the capability to corrupt society and drive it toward decadence and degradation. This is especially true given their group cohesion and hive-mind behavioral tendencies [24]. The truth is, women are a major force in shaping the current rotten state of affairs, and they hold significant responsibility—which, unfortunately, they will not suffer for. Also, as I have previously stated: this person is utilizing the term patriarchy in a malicious manner with the goal of absolving women of responsibility, for women can't possibly be in the wrong; it must be the patriarchy.
View attachment 1479217
This is truly the peak of women's logic here.
View attachment 1479215
You heard her, guys! These are the actions we must take to dismantle the so-called 'patriarchy.' Seriously, this is downright laughable, and I find it hard to believe someone wrote this list seriously. All of the things listed here are merely ways to reinforce an already gynocentric society, and it would be foolish to engage in any of these cucked activities. Furthermore, the last part is not just naïve—it’s utterly delusional.
Let me be perfectly clear: no amount of pandering or self-sacrifice will make women “advocate for men” in any meaningful, systemic way. The idea that women will return favors simply because men support their ridiculous causes is a fantasy rooted in wishful thinking and delusion. This reply is exactly what I previously described: advocacy for further gynocentrism and female supremacy under the guise of fighting "patriarchal values" — and unfortunately, many men fall victim to this nonsense.
---
[2] To me, male genital mutilation, also known as circumcision, is truly one of the most detestable, abhorrent, and barbaric practices which persists in modern society. It is nothing short of appalling that a society that preaches morality, civility, and so-called empathy allows such a morally repugnant violation of human rights to occur. How anyone can justify the purposeless mutilation of a body part that evolved for a reason and serves multiple biological functions is beyond me. Studies have been conducted regarding the downsides of circumcision, most notably, reduced penile sensitivity—caused by the removal of special nerve endings and the keratinization of the mucous membrane. Keratinization refers to the natural reaction of the sensitive inner skin and glans of the penis to exposure to air, and friction with underwear—which is caused by the lack of protection that the foreskin is meant to offer.
---
[3] WISQARS Leading Causes of Death
[4] Freeman, A., Mergl, R., Kohls, E. et al. A cross-national study on gender differences in suicide intent. BMC Psychiatry 17, 234 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1398-8
---
I cited the study about suicidal intent, as it demonstrates a pattern of behavior which many of us were likely aware of: that women's intent is generally not as serious as men's, and is typically a result of attention seeking behavior. Furthermore, these findings poke holes in the feminist notion that women attempt suicide at higher rates, since it is based on the erroneous assertion that intent is equivalent in all cases, and it doesn't take into account the effectiveness of the chosen method.
[5] Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR)r/MensRights - Debunking the "women attempt suicide more" myth once and for all.
355 votes and 71 comments so far on Redditweb.archive.org
---
In addition to the disparity in the number of homeless people—men are unfortunately more likely to be unsheltered, which further exemplifies the apparent female advantage in the modern gynocentric landscape:
View attachment 1472750
[6] Worker Injuries and Illnesses by Sex
---
View attachment 1472722
[7] 2023 Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing
---
[8] Gender Differences in the Sentencing of Felony Offenders
[9] 5/6 Male UK Prisoners would be free if they were Women
---
This came to my attention after @GeckoBus made his fantastic thread about the topic, and is particularly relevant to the issues I have discussed. If you have yet to read it, I'd highly advise you do so, as it breaks down many issues that plague the modern societal landscape, while also being pertinent to further matters I will go over:
[10] Embry, R., & Lyons, P. M. (2012). Sex‑based sentencing: Sentencing discrepancies between male and female sex offenders. Feminist Criminology, 7(2), 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085111430214
Male Rape - The Real Rape Culture + 5 out of 6 men should not be in Prison
Reynhard Sinaga is a serial rapist who was convicted of 159 sex offenses, including 136 rapes of young men [1] Introduction A lonely voice cries in the cyber steppe. For you, the gecko shall rise once more. Our anonymous thread requester wanted me to warn all you sub4 twinks. There has been...
---
[11] Nearly 80% of custodial parents are mothers, while fathers make up only about 20%
[12] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/womens-justice-board-begins-plans-to-send-fewer-women-to-prison
[13] Sánchez, Pina, and Louise Harris. Sentencing Gender? Investigating the Presence of Gender Disparities in Crown Court Sentences. University of Leeds, 2020. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/154388/
[14] Homicide Statistics by Gender
[15] While looking into this topic, I came across this ludicrous feminist drivel, which is a hallmark of what I discussed in this post:
First off, the claim that women experience more repeated and severe abuse is based on police reports and survey data, which are flawed due to underreporting bias—especially when it comes to male victims. Multiple studies show that male victims often underreport abuse due to societal stigma, disbelief, or fear of being mocked. When men do report, they are less likely to be taken seriously or supported. It is only a natural outcome that a disparity in the statistics would emerge, since we live in a highly gynocentric landscape.
And what I really wanted to mention is the nonsensical claim that male violence against women is different because it is “rooted in structural inequality”. This is not an empirical argument; it is a circular ideological assertion. It does not withstand epistemological scrutiny, particularly under Popperian falsifiability. They define the structure as male-dominated, then attribute all male misbehavior to it, and then use that behavior as evidence for the structure. It's the very same tautological reasoning I have previously discussed.
You cannot empirically test whether coercion arises from "patriarchal structure" unless you first demonstrate that such a structure exists, in material terms, and show causality. But as I already argued, feminists do not demonstrate causal mechanisms between societal power structures and individual acts of abuse. They instead assert it axiomatically, which is pseudoscientific by definition.
Furthermore, the claim that “men do not experience domestic abuse as part of embedded, structural inequalities against their sex” is demonstrably false if we look at institutional responses:
- Shelters for male victims are nearly nonexistent, while many exist for women.
- Police often arrest the man even when he is the victim, due to “primary aggressor” policies.
- Legal bias in courts overwhelmingly favors women in abuse allegations and custody.
- Societal perception ridicules male victims or denies their experiences outright.
If this isn’t embedded inequality, what is?
This system not only ignores male suffering; rather, it actively invalidates and delegitimizes it. In other words: the system is structurally anti-male. That directly contradicts the claim of a “patriarchal” system that advantages men at women's expense.
And just as previously outlined: the argument assumes female innocence and male guilt—akin to the original sin doctrine.
---
[16] Statistics on Male Victims of Domestic Abuse
[17] Women Match or Exceed Men in Relationship Aggression
[18] https://www.justice.gov/archives/ovw/blog/updated-definition-rape
I’m sure many of you are well aware of the asymmetry in the legal definition of rape, which excludes made-to-penetrate cases. This leads to a statistical disparity that is frequently used to demonize men while minimizing their experiences. Putting aside my personal views on the subject, it’s clear there is an ongoing injustice and a lack of fairness in determining who is recognized as a victim. Those of you who read the Wiki are likely aware of the CDC’s findings on this issue, which show that under fair definitions, men and women both rape and are raped at similar rates—at least within the past 12 months. The lifetime figures reveal a disparity, though that may be due to generational changes such as the millennial shift and other contributing factors. Furthermore, lifetime prevalence statistics have been challenged because of their susceptibility to inaccuracies:
Has ‘lifetime prevalence’ reached the end of its life? An examination of the concept - PMC
Many cross-sectional surveys in psychiatric epidemiology report estimates of lifetime prevalence, and the results consistently show a declining trend with age for such disorders as depression and anxiety. In a closed cohort with no mortality, ...pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
I must emphasize just how malicious the use of the skewed statistics of rape truly is—utilized to vilify men, and to paint them as animalistic simians that are the primary perpetrators of rape, when ironically, this misrepresentation of facts only serves to prove the gynocentrism within our society, and the immense privilege women hold. It is quite telling that very few studies on made-to-penetrate rape exist, as that would significantly undermine the narrative they cling to.
---
View attachment 1472712
---
View attachment 1472710
---
View attachment 1472711
---
[19] Stemple, L., Flores, A., & Meyer, I. H. (2017). Sexual victimization perpetrated by women: Federal data reveal surprising prevalence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 302–311.
[20] Caricati, L., Baldini, S., & Bonetti, C. (2023). Female‑to‑Male Sexual Assault: The Role of the Perpetrator’s Attractiveness and Attributed Emotional States on Victim Blame. Violence and Victims, 38(3), 396–413.
[21] https://gwern.net/doc/sociology/2021-dimarco.pdf
[22] Statistics on the Purchasing Power of Women Women and Global Spending
View attachment 1473970
So women basically dictate the economy, control the narrative, hold the purse strings, and still somehow men are "privileged"? This is what a gynocentric society looks like. And yet they still play the victim card like they’re oppressed. How do you control most of the spending and wealth in a country and still act like society is stacked against you?
---
[23] Costa, M., & Maestripieri, D. (2023). Physical and psychosocial correlates of facial attractiveness. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 19(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000331
---
View attachment 1472716
---
[24] The in-group bias of women is another topic I would like to bring forth, as it is a crucial aspect of the subject of gynocentrism, and it grants us the opportunity to better understand female nature, as well as the inherent advantages they possess, and the biases inherent to their psychology. To put it simply, the minds of women are governed by an in-group bias that is 4.5 times stronger than that of men, which is truly disturbing—albeit not surprising. These findings demonstrate a perspicuous reality: women are more likely to favor each other and show increased preference for the well-being of other women—as opposed to men, who do not exhibit a similar bias. In fact, men are more likely to favor women, extol them, and idealize them. This dynamic can clearly be seen in the intrasexual behavior of both sexes, where men are in a perpetual state of competing with each other vehemently, while women exhibit such behavior noticeably less.
---
---
To quote @GeckoBus, who put it very nicely:
---
I must admit—this post is far longer than I originally intended for it to be (even after trimming it significantly), and I highly doubt many of you will read it, but for what it's worth, I enjoyed writing about this topic.
Requested tag: @Stupid Clown
dangerous and highly paid jobs have foid vacancies that go unfilled.
There is nothing stopping a foid from becoming a highrise electrician instead of a nanny. other than their brain.
The past 500 construction workers I saw were all men. My dad is a construction team leader so i know what im talking about. Where are all the feminists changing water pipes or laying asphalt?
they will instead hate all sub 6ft men who have built their entire life
they owe their entire fucking livelihood to these men, every amenity that takes care of every minute problem she might ever have
and instead of being thankful
she doesnt see tham as the same species
owes electricians, plumbers, delivery men, construction workers, infrastructer upholders, mechanics, leg work for almost everything she uses
should be on knees thanking these men. In a sane world.
in this fucked up simulation - will never work most of these jobs and spit in the hand that feeds them.
Gem
Women act in self interest as a collective because they can, because biology gave them the leverage and society turbocharged it with laws, technology, and culture. Hypergamy, solipsism, resource extraction aren’t glitches. They’re features. They’re survival strategies baked into them over tens of thousands of years. And the systems around them like feminism, family courts, academia are just mirrors of female preference. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s adaptation. Meanwhile, men are biologically disposable. The male role has always been compete, produce, die. You get status if you’re exceptional. Otherwise, you’re fuel. Every empire was built on the corpses of low status men no one remembers. It’s indifference. Nature doesn’t care about fairness. It cares about outcomes.
So when you say women had inherent value that’s correct. Their reproductive capacity made them a bottleneck in evolution. They were protected because losing them meant extinction. Men were tools. And in modernity, that gap widened. The pill, the state, and the fucking simps gave them freedom without consequence. Now they can extract resources from the system while laughing at the men who fund it. Feminism didn’t liberate women, it just optimized their sexual strategy. It removed all checks on female hypergamy, shamed male standards, and demonized masculinity. And the average man has no answer to that because he's been raised to believe his worth depends on serving a woman who doesn’t need or respect him. So no, it’s not oppression. It’s selection. It’s survival of the fittest. And in the sexual marketplace, most men are surplus. That’s the blackpill.
Only best move is to not play, let it all collapse with chad harems while the bottom 70% of men end up with nothing.
True, in most mammals the pattern of an alpha male getting all the females is very prevalent, now we start to see this with chad harems and rampant hypergamy.
We can't control how females act or dominate them either because most men get lobotomized from birth to simp for and protect them, we can only watch society collapse under its own weight (hopefully).
Exactly. It’s pure cognitive dissonance. These foids who post shit about hating men from their air-conditioned apartments, sipping overpriced coffee, have absolutely zero awareness of who built the very infrastructure they depend on to survive. It's probably due to their deficient, one-dimensional line of thinking, which renders them incapable of observing the bigger picture and how many factors interact; thus, they are incapable of understanding their reliance on those men, as the reliance is not entirely direct but comes in a societal and broad manner, which is one of the major issues in contemporary society, as it leaves those men who endure such harsh work invisible and unappreciated.
And nobody is gatekeeping them from becoming tower climbers or pipeline welders. They simply don’t want to because these roles aren’t glamorous. They selectively participate in equality. They demand boardrooms and Instagrammable careers, not backbreaking, underpaid, essential labor. And somehow, feminists spin this as “patriarchy” too. I had an argument with a feminist the other day, and she claimed those jobs are male dominated because men do not let women in; men “won’t let” women into sanitation? Seriously? It's absurd.
That totally fake propaganda pic belongs in https://www.reddit.com/r/PropagandaPosters/
And both mainstream soyence and Wikipedia sided with the promoters.
As usual when the medical system commits abuses against the population. Also happened with the "safe and effective" Pfizer vaccines.
Would you be willing to release your post into the public domain (CC0 1.0)? I would much appreciate it.
They always side with the ideology that offers the most institutional safety, not the truth.
Yeah sure. You can consider the post released under CC0 1.0.
Been looking for this one, thanks, savedI cited the study about suicidal intent, as it demonstrates a pattern of behavior which many of us were likely aware of: that women's intent is generally not as serious as men's, and is typically a result of attention seeking behavior. Furthermore, these findings poke holes in the feminist notion that women attempt suicide at higher rates, since it is based on the erroneous assertion that intent is equivalent in all cases, and it doesn't take into account the effectiveness of the chosen method.
r/MensRights - Debunking the "women attempt suicide more" myth once and for all.
355 votes and 71 comments so far on Reddit
.A few days ago, I decided to see what will show up on Google Scholar if instead of searching using the term "female-perpetrated" I'll just go with "sexual assault done by women." Not much more comment needed
.Interesting factFurthermore, lifetime prevalence statistics have been challenged because of their susceptibility to inaccuracies:Has ‘lifetime prevalence’ reached the end of its life? An examination of the concept - PMC
Many cross-sectional surveys in psychiatric epidemiology report estimates of lifetime prevalence, and the results consistently show a declining trend with age for such disorders as depression and anxiety. In a closed cohort with no mortality, ...
.
J
Been looking for this one, thanks, saved
A few days ago, I decided to see what will show up on Google Scholar if instead of searching using the term "female-perpetrated" I'll just go with "sexual assault done by women." Not much more comment needed
View attachment 1497153
Interesting fact
Sexual assault done by women is more dangerous as the victim is always boy under age 18.
Never see news that the victim is an adult.
Last edited:
"They’re survival strategies baked into them over tens of thousands of years."
"So when you say women had inherent value that’s correct. Their reproductive capacity made them a bottleneck in evolution. They were protected because losing them meant extinction."
What a dumb and contradictory fucking cuck. Good thing mofo got banned. Some of you morons don't even know what the fuck you're talking about in the next line because you're just blabbering soundbites like a chatgpt response. You just proved these are not survival strategies, just displays of uncontrolled greed. It's akin to saying a country rifed in corruption has a race of population with superior survival traits. Every fucking cuck just folds when it comes to objectively judging foids. Muh farting out evo psycho this and evo psycho that.
"So no, it’s not oppression. It’s selection. It’s survival of the fittest. And in the sexual marketplace, most men are surplus. That’s the blackpill.
Only best move is to not play, let it all collapse with chad harems while the bottom 70% of men end up with nothing."
Of course, here comes the pretentious quote about "survival of the fittest."
It's plain and simple ego-tripping and acting on their unfettered power. A lot of these foids would objectively be able to lead a much better life than they do currently by settling for their looksmatches. But they don't just to spite men.
Last edited:
What a surpriseA few days ago, I decided to see what will show up on Google Scholar if instead of searching using the term "female-perpetrated" I'll just go with "sexual assault done by women." Not much more comment needed
I tried this myself and the results were the same. Almost every article still talks about female victims, not perpetrators. The system is so gynocentric it literally rewrites reality to misrepresent it as if females are oppressed. You could type "woman assaults man at gunpoint" and somehow end up with a study on male aggression. I also had a similar problem when I was researching domestic violence on men, which is when I came across the ridiculous article claiming it's a gendered crime
True. They are more likely to prey on vulnerable targets; that's the essence of female nature.
This should be pinned/sent to must read permanently.
It was previously pinned, but the mods didn't move it to must-read
Brutal and nigger.It was previously pinned, but the mods didn't move it to must-read
@Fat Link I think this one deserves its own spot in the "Must Read" section.
There is no God among hypocritesI would like to preface this by stating this post primarily refers to the mainstream usage of the term 'patriarchy', which is commonly invoked as a catch-all term with the purpose of villainizing men, painting them as inherently privileged, and absolving women of responsibility. This post is quite long-winded, and originally, I was planning to condense all the ideas and topics into a single, large section. However, I have opted against that, since it would have made it overly lengthy and discursive. The post is separated into two sections: the first, primary section — in which I present the central ideas — and the second, in which I offer additional commentary, citations, and interesting things I have come across. The second section is meant to act as supplementary work and is quite lengthy, as I went somewhat overboard.
For the past few months, I have been studying epistemological examination, and one notion that I wanted to delve into is the purported "patriarchy" — the ever-present system that is constantly thrown around to pin the blame on men, and avoid accountability on the part of women—you will see examples of that often, such as 'Who set that system up?' [1]. But the truth is, if patriarchy is everywhere, nowhere, historic, present, abstract, embodied, structural, semantic, and spiritual—then what you call patriarchy is no longer a system. It’s a theodicy. This post will likely be water to many of you, but I still felt like writing it, especially because it's a slightly more in-depth examination of this topic, specifically how the concept of "patriarchy" functions, and how it's used by the masses—not as a social theory, but as a theodicy.
To begin, in theology, a theodicy is a justification for why evil exists in a world supposedly governed by a benevolent God. It exists to preserve belief, not to explain reality—it's often illogical and requires mental gymnastics. And that’s exactly how the modern feminist idea of patriarchy functions.
The "patriarchy" is invoked as this invisible, omnipresent, male-dominated power structure that supposedly explains every "hardship" women face—which are typically made-up, exaggerated, and a result of a deliberate misrepresentation of facts and reality. But when men face disproportionate suffering? Somehow, that too is chalked up to “patriarchy”—as if men built a system to oppress themselves. This, to me, is quite frankly such a hilarious concept, and it goes to show how far they are willing to strive in an attempt to avoid accountability and pin all the blame on men. Just blame every single societal ailment on a mysterious "patriarchy" — I suppose that is much easier than addressing the detrimental problems that plague our society, most notably affecting men in particular.
Originally, patriarchy referred to systems where men held overt, legal power over women—think ancient tribes or literal male property ownership—and such systems didn't emerge with the intention of specifically oppressing anybody; it was simply how humans developed, and the system that functioned well. It was a system that also made sense from an evolutionary perspective, and from a general perspective that considers the innate advantages that women possess due to them being the selective sex, so even if we do concede a patriarchy existed, it certainly wasn't the way feminists like to portray it, and women held many advantages even within it, since human nature is inherently gynocentric. From my observations, I also came to the conclusion a form of presentism is occurring here—a projection of present ideas, beliefs, and values upon the past. Presentism essentially describes the phenomenon of fallacious application of modern lens, and a misrepresentation of the past, which inevitably leads to flawed interpretations of past systems and values. Feminist presentism assumes that modern "egalitarian" values are timeless truths, and therefore all deviation from them in the past was necessarily unjust. But historical cultures had different value systems, and their structures can only be understood relative to the constraints, threats, and technologies of the time—but I digress. The point is, today, patriarchy is a slippery term used to describe anything feminists dislike. A woman is catcalled? Patriarchy. A woman is a CEO? Tokenism—still patriarchy. A man is homeless? Patriarchy made him toxic. It’s tautological.
Now that we got the definitions and the premise out of the way—I want to present the concept of epistemological falsification, which is, as introduced by Karl Popper, the principle that a theory can be considered scientific and epistemically sound only if it is testable and potentially falsifiable through empirical observation. This means that a scientific theory must be able to be proven wrong by evidence, not just confirmed. It's a core concept in the philosophy of science, particularly in distinguishing science from non-science. In the case of the patriarchy, at least as purported by the majority of the populace—it is unfalsifiable.
Try to present any counter-evidence, and you'll get absurd mental gymnastics:
- Male Genital Mutilation is legal and normalized; female genital mutilation is outlawed globally and condemned. — "Still patriarchy; men normalized their own pain to serve toxic masculinity." [2]
- Men commit suicide at 3–4x the rate of women. — "That’s because men don’t express their emotions, which is caused by... you guessed it, patriarchy." [3, 4]
- Men make up the vast majority of the homeless. — Ignored. [5]
- Men dominate the most dangerous and underpaid jobs. — "Because they don’t let women in!" [6]
- Men get longer sentences for the same crimes, and are less likely to win custody battles. — "Well, women are better caregivers" (funny how the patriarchy is selective in empowering women only when it benefits them). [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]
- Men are more likely to be victims of violence, but get less support. — Silence. [14, 15, 16, 17]
- Asymmetrical rape laws exclude "forced to penetrate" cases. If a woman forces a man into sex, she often walks away free. — Must have been the patriarchy! [18, 19, 20, 21]
- Sexual market disparity? Women control it entirely post-sexual revolution. Hypergamy is rampant. Women chase the top percentage of men, leaving millions completely excluded and at a severe disadvantage. — "Men are entitled!"
- Women drive 80% of consumer spending through their purchasing power and influence. — "That's just because men made them care about shopping!" [22]
At this point, what would falsify the theory? Nothing. That’s the point.
The problem with the modern feminist conception of “patriarchy” is that it has devolved into a theory that absorbs counter-evidence rather than being challenged by it. Anything that is contradictory to the ideas it purports, simply transforms into evidence for it, which is illogical and preposterous. There is no imaginable state of the world that falsifies the theory. And according to Popper, that means it ceases to be science—it becomes pseudoscience.
I would also add that Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, introduced the idea of paradigms, which are dominant worldviews that define how scientists interpret data. Within a paradigm, anomalies can build up over time, but the system resists change until a paradigm shift occurs.
If we apply Kuhn’s framework here, feminism operates within a patriarchy-as-paradigm framework. Any data about gender must be filtered through it. Even when mounting anomalies appear—e.g., male suicide, sentencing disparities, educational decline in boys—the paradigm remains intact. These aren’t signs the theory is wrong; they’re interpreted as evidence that the patriarchy is just deeper, more insidious, or more internalized than we thought.
Kuhn argued that revolutions occur when the cost of ignoring anomalies exceeds the cost of changing the paradigm. But with patriarchy theory, the opposite happens: the more anomalies appear, the more elaborate the explanations become.
Imre Lakatos refined Kuhn’s ideas by describing research programs, which are theories with a “hard core” that is protected by an adjustable “protective belt” of auxiliary hypotheses.
View attachment 1475944
In a progressive program, new data leads to predictions and discoveries. In a degenerating program, data is explained away through ad hoc modifications, just to preserve the core belief.
Patriarchy theory is clearly in the degenerating phase:
When women dominate education? “Still patriarchy—schools teach girls to please authority.”
When women have more reproductive power? “It’s still patriarchy—men fear female sexuality.”
If men are structurally privileged, then they must generally benefit more than they suffer from that privilege. Yet no matter what the data shows, the hard core assumption that men created and benefit from a system that oppresses women—remains untouched. And to me, that does not look like growth; rather, it's theological preservationism masquerading as social science.
Before I move on, I'd like to analyze this from opposing viewpoints, as some may argue that I am engaging in scientism—which is, in and of itself, quite rigid, as it's a framework that argues science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. I see it as an old trope—when one's ideological framework can't meet basic evidentiary standards, accuse the critic of scientism. But the truth is, if a theory makes causal claims about society—about outcomes, distributions, structures—it is pretending to be descriptive. And once you claim to describe, you are making empirical claims. You don’t get to assert causality and then escape falsifiability. I don't necessarily believe a system must be material—but must it be coherent? Yes. If you’re calling “patriarchy” a system, and that system produces observable outcomes, then it is subject to the same scrutiny as any other causal explanation. Furthermore, if multiple frameworks claim to explain modern gender structures, we must evaluate which one has the fewest assumptions, the broadest scope, and the greatest predictive value. 'Patriarchy' increasingly requires ad hoc explanations to survive anomalies, whereas gynocentrism or evolutionary reproductive theory, offer a more parsimonious and falsifiable account.
Lastly, I would like to explain these ideas in more detail and analyze common "patriarchal" ideas—and why they fall apart under scrutiny. The truth is, there is no such thing as a patriarchy in the way it is typically portrayed. The so-called patriarchy is better understood as a manifestation of biological differences between men and women. Furthermore, as previously said, the system is better described through a gynocentric lens—one that emerges from human nature, and is amplified by social, cultural, and technological factors.
Let me explain with some examples. Feminists often criticize the objectification of women, yet men are objectified as well. It may be true that women are objectified more frequently in media and entertainment—but why is that? The answer is simple: men tend to enjoy looking at women more than women enjoy looking at men. Generally speaking, men are more visually attracted to women, which is evident in disparities in physical attractiveness ratings between genders [23]. That’s part of the reason why more men consume pornography—because they are more sexually attracted to women and often experience greater unmet sexual desire, since their access to women is typically limited unless they meet the cartoonishly high standards imposed on them. This dynamic is best explained by supply and demand. I would also add that women still consume a considerable amount of porn, especially through different forms such as erotica, which is not exempt from objectification of men and is arguably worse; they are also the primary buyers of sex toys, which are the most direct form of objectification. Moreover, other forms of objectification—such as being reduced to utility—affect men significantly more.
Now consider the question of why there aren’t more women in STEM fields. This, too, likely has biological roots. The truth is, in highly "egalitarian" and feminist countries like Sweden, where people are free to choose their educational paths, the gender gap in STEM fields is even wider than in less progressive nations. This phenomenon is known as the "gender-equality paradox" — a phenomenon that can be explained by the idea that when people are more free to choose, they follow their interests, which may be influenced by innate preferences. Needless to say, gender differences in general and specific types of intelligence are likely another contributing factor. This suggests that the differences are more biological than cultural.
Another frequently asked question is why there are fewer women in politics. A large-scale study found that women, on average, are less interested in politics than men. Interestingly, the gender gap in political interest was wider in developed, modern societies than in developing ones. This demonstrates that fewer women pursue political careers simply because they are less inclined to engage in political activity, and not because of systemic exclusion.
How the 'Patriarchy' Comes Into Play in the Context of Incels — Analysis
To illustrate the aforementioned concepts clearly and structurally, I present an infographic I came across online—one that directly pertains to the matters at hand, particularly within the context of incels. It refers to the patriarchy as a catch-all—exactly as I said—and attempts to argue much of the suffering we endure, and the views we hold, are a result of it—which is nonsensical.
View attachment 1478115
It's quite absurd and laughable, as it attempts to frame our "views" of women as ones shaped by the so-called patriarchy—a notion which is demonstrably false—since our views stem from scientific observation of human nature, and the countless bad experiences we have endured in this gynocentric society. The list of problems it presents is also ridiculous, as no rational explanation could tie those to a mysterious patriarchy, and if inquired, they would likely resort to the same tautological explanations to preserve their flawed belief, in order to absolve women of blame, and attribute it to men. Furthermore, this infographic is susceptible to the very same unfalsifiability I have previously discussed, for it attributes all ailments to a patriarchy without offering any reasonable explanation.
Now, I will structurally dismantle the ideas conveyed in this image:
1. "Incels see these as problems caused by women" — this is a blatant misrepresentation of the views we hold; the majority of us do not attribute the entirety of the blame to women—despite their responsibility for a predominant number of problems. In truth, we recognize the multifactorial nature of such problems, which emerge due to a variety of reasons, such as the inherently gynocentric nature of humans, technology, globalism, modern decadence, simps, and more. Moreover, when we do attribute blame to women—and rightfully so—we do so based on observations of their actions, as well as their direct responsibility and complicity in our suffering. If women are hypergamous, privileged, and they dismiss male suffering as irrelevant—blame will inevitably be placed upon them, and that blame would be rational, not misplaced.
2. "Pressure to be hypersexual" — this is biological reality, not an ideology imposed by men. Male sexual drive is higher on average, which is related to evolutionary factors. Moreover, this pressure is actually reinforced by women who ridicule low-status men, shame virgins, and selectively reward hypermasculine behavior in dating markets. If anything, the “pressure to be hypersexual” is part of a female-curated sexual economy, not a male-imposed one.
3. "Loneliness and isolation – not asking for help" — men didn’t sit down and decree, “Let’s suffer quietly forever.” This is a product of natural selection and social role stratification, not a conspiratorial system created to oppress women. Furthermore, all one must do is observe the behavior women exhibit when a man shows vulnerability; it typically ends with mockery, humiliation, and cruel indifference.
4. "Body image insecurities" — If they genuinely think men oppress themselves with unrealistic body standards, they are misidentifying the source of influence. Female hypergamy and mate selection are the cause, and they're not driven by the mythical "patriarchy."
5. "Lack of mental health support and resources" — who is in charge of much of the modern health and education bureaucracy? Who do politicians pander to? Women, the demographic that votes more, consumes more, and dominates sectors like psychology and education.
If we lived in a society truly run by men for male benefit, wouldn't these services be better funded and targeted toward us? Instead, men are demonized, neglected, and expected to "man up." To call a society shaped around female priorities a patriarchy is ludicrous. This is a clear case of gynocentrism.
Moving on to the bottom part:
1. "Seeing encounters with women as transactional" — this is a consequence of modern dating markets, not patriarchy. Men are not crazy to notice that effort doesn’t guarantee reciprocation, and women benefit from immense sexual choice. When you reduce men to utility, don’t act surprised when some begin to expect outcomes from that utility.
2. "Victimhood – 'I was a nice guy, hot girls are just bitches'" — true, but the part about "hot girls" is a strawman. This is a legitimate reaction to a system where men are treated as disposable unless they meet ludicrously high standards, and denied of love and pleasure because of immutable physical traits.
3. "Normalizing violence against women" — in reality, however, incels are one of the least violent groups on earth. The men most likely to normalize violence against women, and also act upon it—are the very men women flock to.
It's also worth mentioning that ironically, violence against men, whether in prisons, war, or relationships, is routinely ignored by these people; it's significantly more normalized and is often minimized. That only serves to strengthen my point—that society is gynocentric, not patriarchal. This perfectly exemplifies the paradigm entrenchment which these people engage in; they filter the data selectively in an attempt to fortify their flawed perception, and to maintain the hard core assumptions of their 'research program.'
4. "Think they’re entitled to sex just because they’re men" — another dishonest generalization. Most men don’t feel entitled to sex; they feel despair at total exclusion. There’s a difference. Furthermore, the vast number of men who attempt self-improvement disproves this notion entirely, for self-improvement is conceptually antithetical to the notion of inherent entitlement.
To conclude, this infographic demonstrates precisely the epistemological issues that I have described; it misrepresents our views, and proceeds to pin all of our problems onto a mystical force called the 'patriarchy.' In truth, however, none of these problems necessitate the existence of that system, and can be explained more parsimoniously through gynocentrism and female privilege.
The Patriarchy is a Religious Dogma
Much like how the religious explain natural disasters with “God’s mysterious plan,” feminists explain male suffering with “patriarchy hurting men too.” It’s circular, emotionally manipulative, and immune to reason. And its primary purpose is to assign the blame to men, and to free women from the burden of accountability, because if everything is the fault of the 'patriarchy' — everything is men's fault. Such logic is obviously nonsensical, even within its own framework, for it also assumes women are merely passive observers incapable of any ill—which is false. As a matter of fact, it's often women who advocate for, and instill harmful behavior in their male children—the very same behavior that contributes to our suffering, and should be labeled as 'gynocentric', not 'patriarchal'. Some may try to reconcile with the fact that women themselves support the very same structures and behaviors that are described as 'patriarchal' by attributing the blame to the patriarchy, which is tautological reasoning, again—no accountability. The whole thing is just absurd.
This idea that “patriarchy hurts men too” is the favorite feminist failsafe—as if that preserves the coherence of the theory. But this is equivalent to saying “God gives you cancer to test your faith.” It’s not a real explanation. It’s a weak reframing that allows them to claim concern while still preserving the central narrative that men are at fault.
If a theory both privileges and victimizes men—without a clear mechanism or consistent pattern—then what exactly is its predictive value?
The truth is: men hurting doesn’t falsify patriarchy in feminist eyes—in truly absurd fashion, it confirms it. That’s how you know it’s a theodicy. Every data point loops back to the same metaphysical blame.
Sometimes they do attempt to offer falsifiability to it, commonly by referring to political representation and positions of power, but that is, in a sense, an apex fallacy—as it ignores the masses of men who are treated as second class citizens. It also ignores the reality that women hold significant influence over politicians—who often cater specifically to women and their needs, as well as the fact that this disparity could also have biological and evolutionary roots. Furthermore, one should not forget that this is merely shining light on a single power structure, which is solely one among many—social, cultural, sexual, etc.
The modern feminist concept of patriarchy no longer functions as a social theory; it functions as a doctrine of collective guilt. All men are born tainted, whether they benefit from the so-called system or not. It is, in effect, a secular version of original sin: men are inherently suspect, and their very presence in the world is tied to oppression—even if they are homeless, mentally ill, or driven to suicide.
The man who works 12-hour shifts in a freezing meat-packing plant to support a family he will lose in a custody battle? Patriarchy. The boy who fails in a feminized education system designed to reward social compliance over curiosity? Patriarchy. The lonely man who will die alone, unloved, discarded by a hyper-selective sexual marketplace? Patriarchy. The woman who capitalizes on men's loneliness and exploits them through platforms such as OnlyFans? Patriarchy.
How convenient. The same invisible force oppresses women by giving them "too little", and men by giving them too much—of pain, expectation, and burden. It is a moral fail-safe, where no matter who suffers, men are to blame.
But anyone with a functioning brain knows that when a belief system becomes so elastic that it explains everything, it ceases to explain anything.
The truth is, if men actually ran society in a self-serving way—would we allow:
Ourselves to be mutilated at birth?
Ourselves to die in wars we’re drafted into while women are protected?
Ourselves to rot in prison for longer sentences?
Ourselves to be discarded in the dating market based on looks and height?
No. A system that consistently sacrifices men is not a patriarchy. It’s a gynocentric social order under the guise of a purported patriarchy.
In short, the patriarchy—at least in the way it's commonly presented—isn’t a testable, rational framework. It’s an unfalsifiable, theodical belief system designed to preserve a worldview where women are always victims and men are always to blame, regardless of reality.
And like all bad religions, it punishes heretics who point this out.
References and Appendices:
[1] While working on this post, I came across a comment section that echoes the ideas I have expressed perfectly—women and intellectually challenged animals pointing the finger of blame at the 'patriarchy' and at men. The behavior is exactly as I described: the blame is pinned on men, and women are freed of the burden of accountability. All the while, feminist ideology and so-called 'anti-patriarchal' values and actions are nothing more than gynocentrism in disguise. The poster himself fails to understand that the system in question isn’t even what he thinks it is, but the comments are the relevant part anyway.
View attachment 1479216
So, men are benefiting from MGM being legal? From being the majority of the homeless? The majority of suicides? Being disadvantaged in courts? Facing sexual market disparities? Draft laws? Workplace deaths? Custody settlements? And women being responsible for 85% of consumer spending? That totally sounds like a system that benefits men.
The system does not benefit men in any apparent way, and if probed, she would either resort to tautological reasoning or apex fallacies. In fact, I attempted to confront her—and that’s exactly what she did. She also outright denied statistics that contradicted her dogma.
View attachment 1479218
It's hilarious how the existence of a patriarchy is automatically assumed yet never questioned. Discarding that flawed assumption, one must understand that women are not merely passive observers incapable of inflicting deleterious harm; in fact, they are dangerous creatures who possess the capability to corrupt society and drive it toward decadence and degradation. This is especially true given their group cohesion and hive-mind behavioral tendencies [24]. The truth is, women are a major force in shaping the current rotten state of affairs, and they hold significant responsibility—which, unfortunately, they will not suffer for. Also, as I have previously stated: this person is utilizing the term patriarchy in a malicious manner with the goal of absolving women of responsibility, for women can't possibly be in the wrong; it must be the patriarchy.
View attachment 1479217
This is truly the peak of women's logic here.
View attachment 1479215
You heard her, guys! These are the actions we must take to dismantle the so-called 'patriarchy.' Seriously, this is downright laughable, and I find it hard to believe someone wrote this list seriously. All of the things listed here are merely ways to reinforce an already gynocentric society, and it would be foolish to engage in any of these cucked activities. Furthermore, the last part is not just naïve—it’s utterly delusional.
Let me be perfectly clear: no amount of pandering or self-sacrifice will make women “advocate for men” in any meaningful, systemic way. The idea that women will return favors simply because men support their ridiculous causes is a fantasy rooted in wishful thinking and delusion. This reply is exactly what I previously described: advocacy for further gynocentrism and female supremacy under the guise of fighting "patriarchal values" — and unfortunately, many men fall victim to this nonsense.
---
[2] To me, male genital mutilation, also known as circumcision, is truly one of the most detestable, abhorrent, and barbaric practices which persists in modern society. It is nothing short of appalling that a society that preaches morality, civility, and so-called empathy allows such a morally repugnant violation of human rights to occur. How anyone can justify the purposeless mutilation of a body part that evolved for a reason and serves multiple biological functions is beyond me. Studies have been conducted regarding the downsides of circumcision, most notably, reduced penile sensitivity—caused by the removal of special nerve endings and the keratinization of the mucous membrane. Keratinization refers to the natural reaction of the sensitive inner skin and glans of the penis to exposure to air, and friction with underwear—which is caused by the lack of protection that the foreskin is meant to offer.
---
[3] WISQARS Leading Causes of Death
[4] Freeman, A., Mergl, R., Kohls, E. et al. A cross-national study on gender differences in suicide intent. BMC Psychiatry 17, 234 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1398-8
---
I cited the study about suicidal intent, as it demonstrates a pattern of behavior which many of us were likely aware of: that women's intent is generally not as serious as men's, and is typically a result of attention seeking behavior. Furthermore, these findings poke holes in the feminist notion that women attempt suicide at higher rates, since it is based on the erroneous assertion that intent is equivalent in all cases, and it doesn't take into account the effectiveness of the chosen method.
[5] Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR)r/MensRights - Debunking the "women attempt suicide more" myth once and for all.
355 votes and 71 comments so far on Reddit
---
In addition to the disparity in the number of homeless people—men are unfortunately more likely to be unsheltered, which further exemplifies the apparent female advantage in the modern gynocentric landscape:
View attachment 1472750
[6] Worker Injuries and Illnesses by Sex
---
View attachment 1472722
[7] 2023 Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing
---
[8] Gender Differences in the Sentencing of Felony Offenders
[9] 5/6 Male UK Prisoners would be free if they were Women
---
This came to my attention after @GeckoBus made his fantastic thread about the topic, and is particularly relevant to the issues I have discussed. If you have yet to read it, I'd highly advise you do so, as it breaks down many issues that plague the modern societal landscape, while also being pertinent to further matters I will go over:
[10] Embry, R., & Lyons, P. M. (2012). Sex‑based sentencing: Sentencing discrepancies between male and female sex offenders. Feminist Criminology, 7(2), 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085111430214Male Rape - The Real Rape Culture + 5 out of 6 men should not be in Prison
Reynhard Sinaga is a serial rapist who was convicted of 159 sex offenses, including 136 rapes of young men [1] Introduction A lonely voice cries in the cyber steppe. For you, the gecko shall rise once more. Our anonymous thread requester wanted me to warn all you sub4 twinks. There has been...
---
[11] Nearly 80% of custodial parents are mothers, while fathers make up only about 20%
[12] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/womens-justice-board-begins-plans-to-send-fewer-women-to-prison
[13] Sánchez, Pina, and Louise Harris. Sentencing Gender? Investigating the Presence of Gender Disparities in Crown Court Sentences. University of Leeds, 2020. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/154388/
[14] Homicide Statistics by Gender
[15] While looking into this topic, I came across this ludicrous feminist drivel, which is a hallmark of what I discussed in this post:
First off, the claim that women experience more repeated and severe abuse is based on police reports and survey data, which are flawed due to underreporting bias—especially when it comes to male victims. Multiple studies show that male victims often underreport abuse due to societal stigma, disbelief, or fear of being mocked. When men do report, they are less likely to be taken seriously or supported. It is only a natural outcome that a disparity in the statistics would emerge, since we live in a highly gynocentric landscape.
And what I really wanted to mention is the nonsensical claim that male violence against women is different because it is “rooted in structural inequality”. This is not an empirical argument; it is a circular ideological assertion. It does not withstand epistemological scrutiny, particularly under Popperian falsifiability. They define the structure as male-dominated, then attribute all male misbehavior to it, and then use that behavior as evidence for the structure. It's the very same tautological reasoning I have previously discussed.
You cannot empirically test whether coercion arises from "patriarchal structure" unless you first demonstrate that such a structure exists, in material terms, and show causality. But as I already argued, feminists do not demonstrate causal mechanisms between societal power structures and individual acts of abuse. They instead assert it axiomatically, which is pseudoscientific by definition.
Furthermore, the claim that “men do not experience domestic abuse as part of embedded, structural inequalities against their sex” is demonstrably false if we look at institutional responses:
- Shelters for male victims are nearly nonexistent, while many exist for women.
- Police often arrest the man even when he is the victim, due to “primary aggressor” policies.
- Legal bias in courts overwhelmingly favors women in abuse allegations and custody.
- Societal perception ridicules male victims or denies their experiences outright.
If this isn’t embedded inequality, what is?
This system not only ignores male suffering; rather, it actively invalidates and delegitimizes it. In other words: the system is structurally anti-male. That directly contradicts the claim of a “patriarchal” system that advantages men at women's expense.
And just as previously outlined: the argument assumes female innocence and male guilt—akin to the original sin doctrine.
---
[16] Statistics on Male Victims of Domestic Abuse
[17] Women Match or Exceed Men in Relationship Aggression
[18] https://www.justice.gov/archives/ovw/blog/updated-definition-rape
I’m sure many of you are well aware of the asymmetry in the legal definition of rape, which excludes made-to-penetrate cases. This leads to a statistical disparity that is frequently used to demonize men while minimizing their experiences. Putting aside my personal views on the subject, it’s clear there is an ongoing injustice and a lack of fairness in determining who is recognized as a victim. Those of you who read the Wiki are likely aware of the CDC’s findings on this issue, which show that under fair definitions, men and women both rape and are raped at similar rates—at least within the past 12 months. The lifetime figures reveal a disparity, though that may be due to generational changes such as the millennial shift and other contributing factors. Furthermore, lifetime prevalence statistics have been challenged because of their susceptibility to inaccuracies:
Has ‘lifetime prevalence’ reached the end of its life? An examination of the concept - PMC
Many cross-sectional surveys in psychiatric epidemiology report estimates of lifetime prevalence, and the results consistently show a declining trend with age for such disorders as depression and anxiety. In a closed cohort with no mortality, ...
I must emphasize just how malicious the use of the skewed statistics of rape truly is—utilized to vilify men, and to paint them as animalistic simians that are the primary perpetrators of rape, when ironically, this misrepresentation of facts only serves to prove the gynocentrism within our society, and the immense privilege women hold. It is quite telling that very few studies on made-to-penetrate rape exist, as that would significantly undermine the narrative they cling to.
---
View attachment 1472712
---
View attachment 1472710
---
View attachment 1472711
---
[19] Stemple, L., Flores, A., & Meyer, I. H. (2017). Sexual victimization perpetrated by women: Federal data reveal surprising prevalence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 302–311.
[20] Caricati, L., Baldini, S., & Bonetti, C. (2023). Female‑to‑Male Sexual Assault: The Role of the Perpetrator’s Attractiveness and Attributed Emotional States on Victim Blame. Violence and Victims, 38(3), 396–413.
[21] https://gwern.net/doc/sociology/2021-dimarco.pdf
[22] Statistics on the Purchasing Power of Women Women and Global Spending
View attachment 1473970
So women basically dictate the economy, control the narrative, hold the purse strings, and still somehow men are "privileged"? This is what a gynocentric society looks like. And yet they still play the victim card like they’re oppressed. How do you control most of the spending and wealth in a country and still act like society is stacked against you?
---
[23] Costa, M., & Maestripieri, D. (2023). Physical and psychosocial correlates of facial attractiveness. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 19(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000331
---
View attachment 1472716
---
[24] The in-group bias of women is another topic I would like to bring forth, as it is a crucial aspect of the subject of gynocentrism, and it grants us the opportunity to better understand female nature, as well as the inherent advantages they possess, and the biases inherent to their psychology. To put it simply, the minds of women are governed by an in-group bias that is 4.5 times stronger than that of men, which is truly disturbing—albeit not surprising. These findings demonstrate a perspicuous reality: women are more likely to favor each other and show increased preference for the well-being of other women—as opposed to men, who do not exhibit a similar bias. In fact, men are more likely to favor women, extol them, and idealize them. This dynamic can clearly be seen in the intrasexual behavior of both sexes, where men are in a perpetual state of competing with each other vehemently, while women exhibit such behavior noticeably less.
---
---
To quote @GeckoBus, who put it very nicely:
---
I must admit—this post is far longer than I originally intended for it to be (even after trimming it significantly), and I highly doubt many of you will read it, but for what it's worth, I enjoyed writing about this topic.
Requested tag: @Stupid Clown
Holy crap, high iq as always, this belong into must read!
ur one of the best users here
bookmarked and read later i m too lazy now
ur one of the best users here
bookmarked and read later i m too lazy now
Since this thread was bumped, I would like to add these visual charts, as they pertain to domestic violence. They perfectly demonstrate that it is not a gendered issue, and labeling it as such would be misrepresentative. One could even argue that the real gendered problem is that male victims of domestic violence are not treated seriously, have significantly less support, and are consistently misrepresented by the media.
---
---
I appreciate itHoly crap, high iq as always, this belong into must read!
ur one of the best users here
bookmarked and read later i m too lazy now
Genius level IQ displayed and industrious effort.
Though I will say arguing with these on tiktok is a pointless endeavour. These people do not value logic and rationality. They work primarily based on primal feelings and urges and these are sumblimated into this feminst rhetoric quasi bullshit.
It genuinely surpises me on how disingenuous they are. Those rape statistics they skewed and framed to make men look animalistic. The fucking irony...
Well done OP
Though I will say arguing with these on tiktok is a pointless endeavour
. These people do not value logic and rationality. They work primarily based on primal feelings and urges and these are sumblimated into this feminst rhetoric quasi bullshit.It genuinely surpises me on how disingenuous they are. Those rape statistics they skewed and framed to make men look animalistic. The fucking irony...
Well done OP
Appreciate it brocelWell done OP
I can assuredly attest to that; I have attempted to argue with numerous different individuals with opposing viewpoints to mine, particularly in platforms such as TikTok, but also other ones such as X; it is a futile, purposeless, uphill battle. The fact of the matter is, you cannot appeal to reason when the person you are arguing with is unreasonable—which is precisely why I tend to avoid unnecessary interactions these days, as it only leads to mental turmoil and insane time waste, such as the instance wherein I argued with some sheboon about the validity of rape statistics, and she refused to acknowledge or state the definition of rape.Though I will say arguing with these on tiktok is a pointless endeavour
This is part of the reason I have lost hope in the majority of humanity, or at the very least in the concept of peaceful change. When dialogue is entirely meaningless and everyone acts on their own selfish, act‑utilitarian desires, there is no progress to be made — you must resort to drastic measures, for they will continue to value their selfishness and emotions over everything else (even if they are harming everyone, and themselves).
The way they manipulate stats is insane, and it goes deeper when you realize there is no mainstream coverage of any of these issues; the studies conducted on made-to-penetrate rape are scarce in number, and were shoved under the carpet.
Great to see this in Must-Read.
it’s not the 50s unfortunately
A flawless diagnosis of everything that is making society sick. But the prognosis of the patient is not looking good because those people who are in a position to begin administering any sort of cure prefer to make a comfortable living at keeping the status quo flowing.
Looks like I've found a gem. Time to read.
more proof of santa claus
There you have it, what young girls are being shown, rather than be encouraged to take care of aging men who need a helpmate.
The squiggly arms prove we're sick/evil.
Personally I'd never touch that negress who lately stole Homer Simpson's clothing.
I see the young girls being indoctrinated to further feminazi heartlessness as only bags of meat, ripe and ready for . . .
Please all you youngsters reading this : maintain these "shaped" views. The system you see now deserves only to collapse in fire.
Last edited:
?
on a somewhat related note, the worshipping instinct in people is too strong. when people don't renounce religion, they put their faith towards something else.
use atheism as a means of redirecting worship -> convince women to cast men aside through material -> give them the monetary means to acquire material and manage funds -> infinite profit
I'm not even for organized religion, but Christianity in the West for sure had its uses as a means of societal control. I don't have enough trust in the average human to behave without strict societal or religious expectations.
use atheism as a means of redirecting worship -> convince women to cast men aside through material -> give them the monetary means to acquire material and manage funds -> infinite profit
I'm not even for organized religion, but Christianity in the West for sure had its uses as a means of societal control. I don't have enough trust in the average human to behave without strict societal or religious expectations.
Absolutely. Humans have a tendency to attach themselves to some form of belief system, regardless of the nature of said system, and with modern society — that typically translates to all sorts of degenerate ideologies, as well as New Atheism (which is no better than Christianity as far as I am concerned, in fact, it's probably worse). People simply do not have a religion to live by, and so they resort to all sorts of harmful alternatives, which typically lead to hyper-individualistic mindsets, directly leading to higher levels of hedonism; this trend has also been empirically observed in some studies if I remember correctly, and I will probably make a thread about this eventually.
This also ties with the whole Absurdist philosophy, which is conceptually contradictory, and is one of the reasons people end up with such lifestyles. When the death of God occurs, and people become God, what inevitably happens is every person lives by their own whims and desires, those typically being capricious, selfish, and immoral — especially in the case of women; that's why a religious framework is essentially a necessity in society, unless other forms of control can be brought about.
Ultimately, people always need a god, and if it’s not Jehovah, it’s the self. The West killed off Christianity but forgot to replace it with structure (unless you count degenerate parades as structure kek). Once a void is in the place of external authority, instincts begin to rule, and since female instincts dominate the social order, everything spirals around their wants. Now, all we are left with is a materialistic society that doesn't have any virtuous values and principles; materialistic behavior that is particularly pushed by women, as evident in their consumerist behavior shown in the statistics in the post.
?
As far as I'm concerned, New Atheism is a direct offshoot of Christianity. Despite having no immediately clear similarities, the framework is actually identical.
>a belief in universal morality, i.e. ethics. (you have to feed the starving africans, it's the right thing to do)
>a belief in an absolute authority. God for Christians, and the lack of a God for Atheism. therefore, the worship absolute authority is transferred to whoever those who tell them God does not exist wants it to be.
>a means of rallying people behind certain movements by adjoining it with the ideology. i.e. the association of certain political parties with Christianity or Atheism.
I would have to disagree with the individualism part though. Nor do I think that hedonism and individualism have a cause-and-effect relationship in this context. I would say that the fall of Christianity as a faith (which more or less doesn't exist today, even where there is Christianity it's only for socialization and community) causes an increase in hedonism but also a decrease in individualism. Which is ironic, considering Christianity is already a very un-individualistic belief system already. However, it does emphasize an individual connection with God, an otherworldly authority that is above all material. Of course, the "word of God" is able to be manipulated by political entities. However, when you remove God from the equation, you allow these political entities to directly interface with the worship of the masses.
If you could find them, I would love to read the studies demonstrating a cause-and-effect between individualism and hedonism. I would think it's hard to prove that these two aren't simply correlated.
I don't think that individualism necessarily entails the degeneracy that we see today, and I actually believe that much of it comes from political entities being lobbied by conglomerates that would benefit from a consumerist lifestyle of the average man. And the tendency of that man, having nothing in the spiritual realm to bound him, to follow that trend. This induced solipsism is in it of itself a mindset separate from other philosophies and even Absurdism I would say. The state could have easily replaced religion with rational logic (i.e. "women should stay at home because it suits their natural biology better" vs. the previous "that's just what God intended.") Many self-actualization philosophies that are hyper-individualistic (for example Nietzsche I think) would actually be against the interests of this so-called modern degeneracy. Also, as far as I'm aware, Absurdism is more towards the direction of "enjoy your life even if it has no meaning" than "do whatever you want," though I could see the potential for such a school of thought to move towards the direction of the latter.
The way I see it, there isn't enough individualism, and people aren't willing to think for themselves. They'll do whatever they are told, and when the entity they worship, a political party (both the right and the left are guilty of this), tells them to direct their worship at women as well, they'll do so obediently. Certainly, a hyper-individualistic society would not be the most coherent or functional one, but I also don't think it would lead to the catastrophe we see today.
I think I understand where you are coming from, as I personally used to be in favor of individualistic structure, but I don't think that is applicable in society, because unfortunately, when the importance of the individual triumphs over that of the people, it typically leads to harmful self-expression, selfishness, and a lack of strong communal values. In an idealistic sense, individualism could be great, and is not even meant to be centered around selfishness, but about forging your own path of self-mastery — creating one's values and living authentically, but what Nietzsche recognized himself is that most people are not the Übermensch he wanted them to be, and that his individualistic ideas would simply end up getting twisted, which is why he essentially said the average individual could fall into a state of aimlessness and despair, hence mass adoption should never occur.
I also don't think Christianity is individualistic, or more individualistic than our current western society; Christianity grants one morality, a set of principles to live by, beliefs that align with everyone else's; Christians gather in local churches to worship God together, share in communal meals, and participate in liturgical acts which strengthen their shared identity. Even Protestantism is more communitarian than what we currently have.
Basically, what you’re describing as a decrease in individualism is really a shift from true individualism to pseudo-individualism, which is actually a collective of atomized consumers believing themselves to be unique while conforming to the same degenerate material norms.
When I speak of individualism leading to hedonism, I’m referring to this postmodernist nonsense that arose precisely after the death of God. Once you lose the metaphysical hierarchy, there’s nothing above the self, and when the self has no higher aim, it defaults to hedonism in most cases. This isn’t individualism in the classical sense (as in the Stoic or Protestant sense, with moral restraint), but the kind that masquerades as freedom, and is an unfortunate consequence of individualism on the large-scale.
Of course.
Individualism as the moderator of the relationship between hedonism and happiness: A study in 19 nations
We hypothesize that hedonism (valuing pleasure) as a pathway to happiness is more strongly correlated with happiness in more individualistic (vs colle…
--
The study is correlational, but it does demonstrate a correlation exists at the very least; it doesn't take any extraordinary leaps to connect the two, though, as in my eyes, it seems like a natural result on the macro level.
I do agree with you that individualism doesn't entail degeneracy and harm by necessity — in isolation — but it certainly amplifies it and fosters an environment wherein such behavior flourishes, particularly when executed on the macro level and exploited by political entities lobbied by conglomerates that benefit from a consumerist lifestyle for the average man, as you said. You are also correct that Nietzsche would be strongly opposed to the current state of affairs, as this is absolutely not the individualism he personally idealized, even if it is undeniably influenced by individualistic principles; he feared that society will turn into what it is today, and he predicted it would with uncanny accuracy.
The issue isn’t Nietzsche himself, but how his ideas devolve when filtered through a mass of spiritually hollow individuals. In other words, Nietzsche’s Übermensch becomes the modern narcissist once stripped of the metaphysical foundation that made self-overcoming meaningful in the first place.
As for Absurdism, you’re correct that it doesn’t explicitly advocate unrestrained indulgence, but in practice, it provides no restraining principle either: “enjoy your life even if it has no meaning” still opens the door to hedonism when there’s no higher value to orient that enjoyment. Absurdism also opened the door to postmodernist nihilism, which I cannot overstate how harmful it has been; this was not the original intention of Albert Camus, even if I also disagree with his original concept of Absurdism, but it did end up like that, as seen in figures like Jean-Paul Sartre and his girlfriend Simone de Beauvoir who brought about existentialist nonsense. Much of this also lead to democratization of the Übermensch ideal, but that was never supposed to happen.
We pretty much agree on this — but I would say the problem isn’t merely a lack of individualism, but the wrong kind of individualism, and that the ideal individualism is not really pragmatic. I suppose it's also not apt to go ahead and blame individualism alone, as it requires other factors to truly lead to the current gyno-fascist, consumerist, decadent society — but it certainly is a contributing factor, arguably a major one.
Last edited:
?
Knowledgemaxxed and readingpilled.
I appreciate the insights you provide because you seem to be knowledgeable in terms of philosophy, which I am not.
Seems I've fallen into the classic trap of referencing Nietzsche without having any knowledge of his writings lol
I think you're right that collectivism is important for the average human, and that nihilistic individualism really opens the gate to hedonism. There's really no way to "prove" these statements, but I'd agree we can assume they're accurate. And I'd agree that community is a large part of it too.
I think this also maps onto the concepts of freedom and permission. We've gone from having more freedom to having more permission.
I appreciate the insights you provide because you seem to be knowledgeable in terms of philosophy, which I am not.
Seems I've fallen into the classic trap of referencing Nietzsche without having any knowledge of his writings lol
I think you're right that collectivism is important for the average human, and that nihilistic individualism really opens the gate to hedonism. There's really no way to "prove" these statements, but I'd agree we can assume they're accurate. And I'd agree that community is a large part of it too.
This is a well worded trvke. What people believe is happening and what is actually happening are often two completely different worlds. People have gone from making decisions within the bounds of societal limits to having their decisions made for them but thinking it's their own completely free will. Being unbound by previously established societal norms and making what they think are their own choices while they blindly walk into a trap. In their mind, they see themselves as the new God all the while they worship material entities in actuality. They're thankful that they have the "freedom" to endlessly chase hits of pleasure while everything withers away. I'd argue that it's this cognitive dissonance in "pseudo-individualistic" postmodernist thought that makes it the most dangerous, it uses seemingly truthful lies and sneaky wording to lure people in.
I think this also maps onto the concepts of freedom and permission. We've gone from having more freedom to having more permission.
J
Most people misunderstand what patriarchy is - it is a society where the common values are predominantly masculine, as opposed to matriarchy where the common values are predominantly feminine. The fact that in a patriarchy most power is held by males is simply a consequence of that. We do in fact live in a patriarchy, at least in the western world, though believe me, this is quickly changing. The thing is not that the patriarchy does not exist, it is that is does but is a good thing. Denying the patriarchy exists will bring us nowhere but allow the feminists to slowly and covertly bring about a matriarchy, as they have been doing for the last hundred years or so. The critiques of patriarchy are mostly very much reasonable, as no social order is without its disadvantages, though the correct response to that is that matriarchy is so, so much worse, not just for the males but for everybody. To give an example, justice is a typically masculine value, while empathy feminine. So, if one commits heinous acts, patriarchal culture will seek to punish him harshly for it, while matriarchal culture will instantly start making excuses as to why the cunt is the way he is, even going as far as to start claiming that none of it was his fault. A slow and steady transition from one to the other I am sure we have all noticed in the western world by now.
Patriarchy is in fact the only reason the civilized world we live in now exists, since for matriarchal societies it is impossible in my opinion to make it past the small isolated tribe stage.
Patriarchy is in fact the only reason the civilized world we live in now exists, since for matriarchal societies it is impossible in my opinion to make it past the small isolated tribe stage.
dnr
trueI would like to preface this by stating this post primarily refers to the mainstream usage of the term 'patriarchy', which is commonly invoked as a catch-all term with the purpose of villainizing men, painting them as inherently privileged, and absolving women of responsibility. This post is quite long-winded, and originally, I was planning to condense all the ideas and topics into a single, large section. However, I have opted against that, since it would have made it overly lengthy and discursive. The post is separated into two sections: the first, primary section — in which I present the central ideas — and the second, in which I offer additional commentary, citations, and interesting things I have come across. The second section is meant to act as supplementary work and is quite lengthy, as I went somewhat overboard.
For the past few months, I have been studying epistemological examination, and one notion that I wanted to delve into is the purported "patriarchy" — the ever-present system that is constantly thrown around to pin the blame on men, and avoid accountability on the part of women—you will see examples of that often, such as 'Who set that system up?' [1]. But the truth is, if patriarchy is everywhere, nowhere, historic, present, abstract, embodied, structural, semantic, and spiritual—then what you call patriarchy is no longer a system. It’s a theodicy. This post will likely be water to many of you, but I still felt like writing it, especially because it's a slightly more in-depth examination of this topic, specifically how the concept of "patriarchy" functions, and how it's used by the masses—not as a social theory, but as a theodicy.
To begin, in theology, a theodicy is a justification for why evil exists in a world supposedly governed by a benevolent God. It exists to preserve belief, not to explain reality—it's often illogical and requires mental gymnastics. And that’s exactly how the modern feminist idea of patriarchy functions.
The "patriarchy" is invoked as this invisible, omnipresent, male-dominated power structure that supposedly explains every "hardship" women face—which are typically made-up, exaggerated, and a result of a deliberate misrepresentation of facts and reality. But when men face disproportionate suffering? Somehow, that too is chalked up to “patriarchy”—as if men built a system to oppress themselves. This, to me, is quite frankly such a hilarious concept, and it goes to show how far they are willing to strive in an attempt to avoid accountability and pin all the blame on men. Just blame every single societal ailment on a mysterious "patriarchy" — I suppose that is much easier than addressing the detrimental problems that plague our society, most notably affecting men in particular.
Originally, patriarchy referred to systems where men held overt, legal power over women—think ancient tribes or literal male property ownership—and such systems didn't emerge with the intention of specifically oppressing anybody; it was simply how humans developed, and the system that functioned well. It was a system that also made sense from an evolutionary perspective, and from a general perspective that considers the innate advantages that women possess due to them being the selective sex, so even if we do concede a patriarchy existed, it certainly wasn't the way feminists like to portray it, and women held many advantages even within it, since human nature is inherently gynocentric. From my observations, I also came to the conclusion a form of presentism is occurring here—a projection of present ideas, beliefs, and values upon the past. Presentism essentially describes the phenomenon of fallacious application of modern lens, and a misrepresentation of the past, which inevitably leads to flawed interpretations of past systems and values. Feminist presentism assumes that modern "egalitarian" values are timeless truths, and therefore all deviation from them in the past was necessarily unjust. But historical cultures had different value systems, and their structures can only be understood relative to the constraints, threats, and technologies of the time—but I digress. The point is, today, patriarchy is a slippery term used to describe anything feminists dislike. A woman is catcalled? Patriarchy. A woman is a CEO? Tokenism—still patriarchy. A man is homeless? Patriarchy made him toxic. It’s tautological.
Now that we got the definitions and the premise out of the way—I want to present the concept of epistemological falsification, which is, as introduced by Karl Popper, the principle that a theory can be considered scientific and epistemically sound only if it is testable and potentially falsifiable through empirical observation. This means that a scientific theory must be able to be proven wrong by evidence, not just confirmed. It's a core concept in the philosophy of science, particularly in distinguishing science from non-science. In the case of the patriarchy, at least as purported by the majority of the populace—it is unfalsifiable.
Try to present any counter-evidence, and you'll get absurd mental gymnastics:
- Male Genital Mutilation is legal and normalized; female genital mutilation is outlawed globally and condemned. — "Still patriarchy; men normalized their own pain to serve toxic masculinity." [2]
- Men commit suicide at 3–4x the rate of women. — "That’s because men don’t express their emotions, which is caused by... you guessed it, patriarchy." [3, 4]
- Men make up the vast majority of the homeless. — Ignored. [5]
- Men dominate the most dangerous and underpaid jobs. — "Because they don’t let women in!" [6]
- Men get longer sentences for the same crimes, and are less likely to win custody battles. — "Well, women are better caregivers" (funny how the patriarchy is selective in empowering women only when it benefits them). [7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13]
- Men are more likely to be victims of violence, but get less support. — Silence. [14, 15, 16, 17]
- Asymmetrical rape laws exclude "forced to penetrate" cases. If a woman forces a man into sex, she often walks away free. — Must have been the patriarchy! [18, 19, 20, 21]
- Sexual market disparity? Women control it entirely post-sexual revolution. Hypergamy is rampant. Women chase the top percentage of men, leaving millions completely excluded and at a severe disadvantage. — "Men are entitled!"
- Women drive 80% of consumer spending through their purchasing power and influence. — "That's just because men made them care about shopping!" [22]
At this point, what would falsify the theory? Nothing. That’s the point.
The problem with the modern feminist conception of “patriarchy” is that it has devolved into a theory that absorbs counter-evidence rather than being challenged by it. Anything that is contradictory to the ideas it purports, simply transforms into evidence for it, which is illogical and preposterous. There is no imaginable state of the world that falsifies the theory. And according to Popper, that means it ceases to be science—it becomes pseudoscience.
I would also add that Thomas Kuhn, in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, introduced the idea of paradigms, which are dominant worldviews that define how scientists interpret data. Within a paradigm, anomalies can build up over time, but the system resists change until a paradigm shift occurs.
If we apply Kuhn’s framework here, feminism operates within a patriarchy-as-paradigm framework. Any data about gender must be filtered through it. Even when mounting anomalies appear—e.g., male suicide, sentencing disparities, educational decline in boys—the paradigm remains intact. These aren’t signs the theory is wrong; they’re interpreted as evidence that the patriarchy is just deeper, more insidious, or more internalized than we thought.
Kuhn argued that revolutions occur when the cost of ignoring anomalies exceeds the cost of changing the paradigm. But with patriarchy theory, the opposite happens: the more anomalies appear, the more elaborate the explanations become.
Imre Lakatos refined Kuhn’s ideas by describing research programs, which are theories with a “hard core” that is protected by an adjustable “protective belt” of auxiliary hypotheses.
View attachment 1475944
In a progressive program, new data leads to predictions and discoveries. In a degenerating program, data is explained away through ad hoc modifications, just to preserve the core belief.
Patriarchy theory is clearly in the degenerating phase:
When women dominate education? “Still patriarchy—schools teach girls to please authority.”
When women have more reproductive power? “It’s still patriarchy—men fear female sexuality.”
If men are structurally privileged, then they must generally benefit more than they suffer from that privilege. Yet no matter what the data shows, the hard core assumption that men created and benefit from a system that oppresses women—remains untouched. And to me, that does not look like growth; rather, it's theological preservationism masquerading as social science.
Before I move on, I'd like to analyze this from opposing viewpoints, as some may argue that I am engaging in scientism—which is, in and of itself, quite rigid, as it's a framework that argues science and the scientific method are the best or only way to render truth about the world and reality. I see it as an old trope—when one's ideological framework can't meet basic evidentiary standards, accuse the critic of scientism. But the truth is, if a theory makes causal claims about society—about outcomes, distributions, structures—it is pretending to be descriptive. And once you claim to describe, you are making empirical claims. You don’t get to assert causality and then escape falsifiability. I don't necessarily believe a system must be material—but must it be coherent? Yes. If you’re calling “patriarchy” a system, and that system produces observable outcomes, then it is subject to the same scrutiny as any other causal explanation. Furthermore, if multiple frameworks claim to explain modern gender structures, we must evaluate which one has the fewest assumptions, the broadest scope, and the greatest predictive value. 'Patriarchy' increasingly requires ad hoc explanations to survive anomalies, whereas gynocentrism or evolutionary reproductive theory, offer a more parsimonious and falsifiable account.
Lastly, I would like to explain these ideas in more detail and analyze common "patriarchal" ideas—and why they fall apart under scrutiny. The truth is, there is no such thing as a patriarchy in the way it is typically portrayed. The so-called patriarchy is better understood as a manifestation of biological differences between men and women. Furthermore, as previously said, the system is better described through a gynocentric lens—one that emerges from human nature, and is amplified by social, cultural, and technological factors.
Let me explain with some examples. Feminists often criticize the objectification of women, yet men are objectified as well. It may be true that women are objectified more frequently in media and entertainment—but why is that? The answer is simple: men tend to enjoy looking at women more than women enjoy looking at men. Generally speaking, men are more visually attracted to women, which is evident in disparities in physical attractiveness ratings between genders [23]. That’s part of the reason why more men consume pornography—because they are more sexually attracted to women and often experience greater unmet sexual desire, since their access to women is typically limited unless they meet the cartoonishly high standards imposed on them. This dynamic is best explained by supply and demand. I would also add that women still consume a considerable amount of porn, especially through different forms such as erotica, which is not exempt from objectification of men and is arguably worse; they are also the primary buyers of sex toys, which are the most direct form of objectification. Moreover, other forms of objectification—such as being reduced to utility—affect men significantly more.
Now consider the question of why there aren’t more women in STEM fields. This, too, likely has biological roots. The truth is, in highly "egalitarian" and feminist countries like Sweden, where people are free to choose their educational paths, the gender gap in STEM fields is even wider than in less progressive nations. This phenomenon is known as the "gender-equality paradox" — a phenomenon that can be explained by the idea that when people are more free to choose, they follow their interests, which may be influenced by innate preferences. Needless to say, gender differences in general and specific types of intelligence are likely another contributing factor. This suggests that the differences are more biological than cultural.
Another frequently asked question is why there are fewer women in politics. A large-scale study found that women, on average, are less interested in politics than men. Interestingly, the gender gap in political interest was wider in developed, modern societies than in developing ones. This demonstrates that fewer women pursue political careers simply because they are less inclined to engage in political activity, and not because of systemic exclusion.
How the 'Patriarchy' Comes Into Play in the Context of Incels — Analysis
To illustrate the aforementioned concepts clearly and structurally, I present an infographic I came across online—one that directly pertains to the matters at hand, particularly within the context of incels. It refers to the patriarchy as a catch-all—exactly as I said—and attempts to argue much of the suffering we endure, and the views we hold, are a result of it—which is nonsensical.
View attachment 1478115
It's quite absurd and laughable, as it attempts to frame our "views" of women as ones shaped by the so-called patriarchy—a notion which is demonstrably false—since our views stem from scientific observation of human nature, and the countless bad experiences we have endured in this gynocentric society. The list of problems it presents is also ridiculous, as no rational explanation could tie those to a mysterious patriarchy, and if inquired, they would likely resort to the same tautological explanations to preserve their flawed belief, in order to absolve women of blame, and attribute it to men. Furthermore, this infographic is susceptible to the very same unfalsifiability I have previously discussed, for it attributes all ailments to a patriarchy without offering any reasonable explanation.
Now, I will structurally dismantle the ideas conveyed in this image:
1. "Incels see these as problems caused by women" — this is a blatant misrepresentation of the views we hold; the majority of us do not attribute the entirety of the blame to women—despite their responsibility for a predominant number of problems. In truth, we recognize the multifactorial nature of such problems, which emerge due to a variety of reasons, such as the inherently gynocentric nature of humans, technology, globalism, modern decadence, simps, and more. Moreover, when we do attribute blame to women—and rightfully so—we do so based on observations of their actions, as well as their direct responsibility and complicity in our suffering. If women are hypergamous, privileged, and they dismiss male suffering as irrelevant—blame will inevitably be placed upon them, and that blame would be rational, not misplaced.
2. "Pressure to be hypersexual" — this is biological reality, not an ideology imposed by men. Male sexual drive is higher on average, which is related to evolutionary factors. Moreover, this pressure is actually reinforced by women who ridicule low-status men, shame virgins, and selectively reward hypermasculine behavior in dating markets. If anything, the “pressure to be hypersexual” is part of a female-curated sexual economy, not a male-imposed one.
3. "Loneliness and isolation – not asking for help" — men didn’t sit down and decree, “Let’s suffer quietly forever.” This is a product of natural selection and social role stratification, not a conspiratorial system created to oppress women. Furthermore, all one must do is observe the behavior women exhibit when a man shows vulnerability; it typically ends with mockery, humiliation, and cruel indifference.
4. "Body image insecurities" — If they genuinely think men oppress themselves with unrealistic body standards, they are misidentifying the source of influence. Female hypergamy and mate selection are the cause, and they're not driven by the mythical "patriarchy."
5. "Lack of mental health support and resources" — who is in charge of much of the modern health and education bureaucracy? Who do politicians pander to? Women, the demographic that votes more, consumes more, and dominates sectors like psychology and education.
If we lived in a society truly run by men for male benefit, wouldn't these services be better funded and targeted toward us? Instead, men are demonized, neglected, and expected to "man up." To call a society shaped around female priorities a patriarchy is ludicrous. This is a clear case of gynocentrism.
Moving on to the bottom part:
1. "Seeing encounters with women as transactional" — this is a consequence of modern dating markets, not patriarchy. Men are not crazy to notice that effort doesn’t guarantee reciprocation, and women benefit from immense sexual choice. When you reduce men to utility, don’t act surprised when some begin to expect outcomes from that utility.
2. "Victimhood – 'I was a nice guy, hot girls are just bitches'" — true, but the part about "hot girls" is a strawman. This is a legitimate reaction to a system where men are treated as disposable unless they meet ludicrously high standards, and denied of love and pleasure because of immutable physical traits.
3. "Normalizing violence against women" — in reality, however, incels are one of the least violent groups on earth. The men most likely to normalize violence against women, and also act upon it—are the very men women flock to.
It's also worth mentioning that ironically, violence against men, whether in prisons, war, or relationships, is routinely ignored by these people; it's significantly more normalized and is often minimized. That only serves to strengthen my point—that society is gynocentric, not patriarchal. This perfectly exemplifies the paradigm entrenchment which these people engage in; they filter the data selectively in an attempt to fortify their flawed perception, and to maintain the hard core assumptions of their 'research program.'
4. "Think they’re entitled to sex just because they’re men" — another dishonest generalization. Most men don’t feel entitled to sex; they feel despair at total exclusion. There’s a difference. Furthermore, the vast number of men who attempt self-improvement disproves this notion entirely, for self-improvement is conceptually antithetical to the notion of inherent entitlement.
To conclude, this infographic demonstrates precisely the epistemological issues that I have described; it misrepresents our views, and proceeds to pin all of our problems onto a mystical force called the 'patriarchy.' In truth, however, none of these problems necessitate the existence of that system, and can be explained more parsimoniously through gynocentrism and female privilege.
The Patriarchy is a Religious Dogma
Much like how the religious explain natural disasters with “God’s mysterious plan,” feminists explain male suffering with “patriarchy hurting men too.” It’s circular, emotionally manipulative, and immune to reason. And its primary purpose is to assign the blame to men, and to free women from the burden of accountability, because if everything is the fault of the 'patriarchy' — everything is men's fault. Such logic is obviously nonsensical, even within its own framework, for it also assumes women are merely passive observers incapable of any ill—which is false. As a matter of fact, it's often women who advocate for, and instill harmful behavior in their male children—the very same behavior that contributes to our suffering, and should be labeled as 'gynocentric', not 'patriarchal'. Some may try to reconcile with the fact that women themselves support the very same structures and behaviors that are described as 'patriarchal' by attributing the blame to the patriarchy, which is tautological reasoning, again—no accountability. The whole thing is just absurd.
This idea that “patriarchy hurts men too” is the favorite feminist failsafe—as if that preserves the coherence of the theory. But this is equivalent to saying “God gives you cancer to test your faith.” It’s not a real explanation. It’s a weak reframing that allows them to claim concern while still preserving the central narrative that men are at fault.
If a theory both privileges and victimizes men—without a clear mechanism or consistent pattern—then what exactly is its predictive value?
The truth is: men hurting doesn’t falsify patriarchy in feminist eyes—in truly absurd fashion, it confirms it. That’s how you know it’s a theodicy. Every data point loops back to the same metaphysical blame.
Sometimes they do attempt to offer falsifiability to it, commonly by referring to political representation and positions of power, but that is, in a sense, an apex fallacy—as it ignores the masses of men who are treated as second class citizens. It also ignores the reality that women hold significant influence over politicians—who often cater specifically to women and their needs, as well as the fact that this disparity could also have biological and evolutionary roots. Furthermore, one should not forget that this is merely shining light on a single power structure, which is solely one among many—social, cultural, sexual, etc.
The modern feminist concept of patriarchy no longer functions as a social theory; it functions as a doctrine of collective guilt. All men are born tainted, whether they benefit from the so-called system or not. It is, in effect, a secular version of original sin: men are inherently suspect, and their very presence in the world is tied to oppression—even if they are homeless, mentally ill, or driven to suicide.
The man who works 12-hour shifts in a freezing meat-packing plant to support a family he will lose in a custody battle? Patriarchy. The boy who fails in a feminized education system designed to reward social compliance over curiosity? Patriarchy. The lonely man who will die alone, unloved, discarded by a hyper-selective sexual marketplace? Patriarchy. The woman who capitalizes on men's loneliness and exploits them through platforms such as OnlyFans? Patriarchy.
How convenient. The same invisible force oppresses women by giving them "too little", and men by giving them too much—of pain, expectation, and burden. It is a moral fail-safe, where no matter who suffers, men are to blame.
But anyone with a functioning brain knows that when a belief system becomes so elastic that it explains everything, it ceases to explain anything.
The truth is, if men actually ran society in a self-serving way—would we allow:
Ourselves to be mutilated at birth?
Ourselves to die in wars we’re drafted into while women are protected?
Ourselves to rot in prison for longer sentences?
Ourselves to be discarded in the dating market based on looks and height?
No. A system that consistently sacrifices men is not a patriarchy. It’s a gynocentric social order under the guise of a purported patriarchy.
In short, the patriarchy—at least in the way it's commonly presented—isn’t a testable, rational framework. It’s an unfalsifiable, theodical belief system designed to preserve a worldview where women are always victims and men are always to blame, regardless of reality.
And like all bad religions, it punishes heretics who point this out.
References and Appendices:
[1] While working on this post, I came across a comment section that echoes the ideas I have expressed perfectly—women and intellectually challenged animals pointing the finger of blame at the 'patriarchy' and at men. The behavior is exactly as I described: the blame is pinned on men, and women are freed of the burden of accountability. All the while, feminist ideology and so-called 'anti-patriarchal' values and actions are nothing more than gynocentrism in disguise. The poster himself fails to understand that the system in question isn’t even what he thinks it is, but the comments are the relevant part anyway.
View attachment 1479216
So, men are benefiting from MGM being legal? From being the majority of the homeless? The majority of suicides? Being disadvantaged in courts? Facing sexual market disparities? Draft laws? Workplace deaths? Custody settlements? And women being responsible for 85% of consumer spending? That totally sounds like a system that benefits men.
The system does not benefit men in any apparent way, and if probed, she would either resort to tautological reasoning or apex fallacies. In fact, I attempted to confront her—and that’s exactly what she did. She also outright denied statistics that contradicted her dogma.
View attachment 1479218
It's hilarious how the existence of a patriarchy is automatically assumed yet never questioned. Discarding that flawed assumption, one must understand that women are not merely passive observers incapable of inflicting deleterious harm; in fact, they are dangerous creatures who possess the capability to corrupt society and drive it toward decadence and degradation. This is especially true given their group cohesion and hive-mind behavioral tendencies [24]. The truth is, women are a major force in shaping the current rotten state of affairs, and they hold significant responsibility—which, unfortunately, they will not suffer for. Also, as I have previously stated: this person is utilizing the term patriarchy in a malicious manner with the goal of absolving women of responsibility, for women can't possibly be in the wrong; it must be the patriarchy.
View attachment 1479217
This is truly the peak of women's logic here.
View attachment 1479215
You heard her, guys! These are the actions we must take to dismantle the so-called 'patriarchy.' Seriously, this is downright laughable, and I find it hard to believe someone wrote this list seriously. All of the things listed here are merely ways to reinforce an already gynocentric society, and it would be foolish to engage in any of these cucked activities. Furthermore, the last part is not just naïve—it’s utterly delusional.
Let me be perfectly clear: no amount of pandering or self-sacrifice will make women “advocate for men” in any meaningful, systemic way. The idea that women will return favors simply because men support their ridiculous causes is a fantasy rooted in wishful thinking and delusion. This reply is exactly what I previously described: advocacy for further gynocentrism and female supremacy under the guise of fighting "patriarchal values" — and unfortunately, many men fall victim to this nonsense.
---
[2] To me, male genital mutilation, also known as circumcision, is truly one of the most detestable, abhorrent, and barbaric practices which persists in modern society. It is nothing short of appalling that a society that preaches morality, civility, and so-called empathy allows such a morally repugnant violation of human rights to occur. How anyone can justify the purposeless mutilation of a body part that evolved for a reason and serves multiple biological functions is beyond me. Studies have been conducted regarding the downsides of circumcision, most notably, reduced penile sensitivity—caused by the removal of special nerve endings and the keratinization of the mucous membrane. Keratinization refers to the natural reaction of the sensitive inner skin and glans of the penis to exposure to air, and friction with underwear—which is caused by the lack of protection that the foreskin is meant to offer.
---
[3] WISQARS Leading Causes of Death
[4] Freeman, A., Mergl, R., Kohls, E. et al. A cross-national study on gender differences in suicide intent. BMC Psychiatry 17, 234 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-017-1398-8
---
I cited the study about suicidal intent, as it demonstrates a pattern of behavior which many of us were likely aware of: that women's intent is generally not as serious as men's, and is typically a result of attention seeking behavior. Furthermore, these findings poke holes in the feminist notion that women attempt suicide at higher rates, since it is based on the erroneous assertion that intent is equivalent in all cases, and it doesn't take into account the effectiveness of the chosen method.
[5] Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR)r/MensRights - Debunking the "women attempt suicide more" myth once and for all.
355 votes and 71 comments so far on Reddit
---
In addition to the disparity in the number of homeless people—men are unfortunately more likely to be unsheltered, which further exemplifies the apparent female advantage in the modern gynocentric landscape:
View attachment 1472750
[6] Worker Injuries and Illnesses by Sex
---
View attachment 1472722
[7] 2023 Demographic Differences in Federal Sentencing
---
[8] Gender Differences in the Sentencing of Felony Offenders
[9] 5/6 Male UK Prisoners would be free if they were Women
---
This came to my attention after @GeckoBus made his fantastic thread about the topic, and is particularly relevant to the issues I have discussed. If you have yet to read it, I'd highly advise you do so, as it breaks down many issues that plague the modern societal landscape, while also being pertinent to further matters I will go over:
[10] Embry, R., & Lyons, P. M. (2012). Sex‑based sentencing: Sentencing discrepancies between male and female sex offenders. Feminist Criminology, 7(2), 146–162. https://doi.org/10.1177/1557085111430214Male Rape - The Real Rape Culture + 5 out of 6 men should not be in Prison
Reynhard Sinaga is a serial rapist who was convicted of 159 sex offenses, including 136 rapes of young men [1] Introduction A lonely voice cries in the cyber steppe. For you, the gecko shall rise once more. Our anonymous thread requester wanted me to warn all you sub4 twinks. There has been...
---
[11] Nearly 80% of custodial parents are mothers, while fathers make up only about 20%
[12] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/womens-justice-board-begins-plans-to-send-fewer-women-to-prison
[13] Sánchez, Pina, and Louise Harris. Sentencing Gender? Investigating the Presence of Gender Disparities in Crown Court Sentences. University of Leeds, 2020. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/154388/
[14] Homicide Statistics by Gender
[15] While looking into this topic, I came across this ludicrous feminist drivel, which is a hallmark of what I discussed in this post:
First off, the claim that women experience more repeated and severe abuse is based on police reports and survey data, which are flawed due to underreporting bias—especially when it comes to male victims. Multiple studies show that male victims often underreport abuse due to societal stigma, disbelief, or fear of being mocked. When men do report, they are less likely to be taken seriously or supported. It is only a natural outcome that a disparity in the statistics would emerge, since we live in a highly gynocentric landscape.
And what I really wanted to mention is the nonsensical claim that male violence against women is different because it is “rooted in structural inequality”. This is not an empirical argument; it is a circular ideological assertion. It does not withstand epistemological scrutiny, particularly under Popperian falsifiability. They define the structure as male-dominated, then attribute all male misbehavior to it, and then use that behavior as evidence for the structure. It's the very same tautological reasoning I have previously discussed.
You cannot empirically test whether coercion arises from "patriarchal structure" unless you first demonstrate that such a structure exists, in material terms, and show causality. But as I already argued, feminists do not demonstrate causal mechanisms between societal power structures and individual acts of abuse. They instead assert it axiomatically, which is pseudoscientific by definition.
Furthermore, the claim that “men do not experience domestic abuse as part of embedded, structural inequalities against their sex” is demonstrably false if we look at institutional responses:
- Shelters for male victims are nearly nonexistent, while many exist for women.
- Police often arrest the man even when he is the victim, due to “primary aggressor” policies.
- Legal bias in courts overwhelmingly favors women in abuse allegations and custody.
- Societal perception ridicules male victims or denies their experiences outright.
If this isn’t embedded inequality, what is?
This system not only ignores male suffering; rather, it actively invalidates and delegitimizes it. In other words: the system is structurally anti-male. That directly contradicts the claim of a “patriarchal” system that advantages men at women's expense.
And just as previously outlined: the argument assumes female innocence and male guilt—akin to the original sin doctrine.
---
[16] Statistics on Male Victims of Domestic Abuse
[17] Women Match or Exceed Men in Relationship Aggression
[18] https://www.justice.gov/archives/ovw/blog/updated-definition-rape
I’m sure many of you are well aware of the asymmetry in the legal definition of rape, which excludes made-to-penetrate cases. This leads to a statistical disparity that is frequently used to demonize men while minimizing their experiences. Putting aside my personal views on the subject, it’s clear there is an ongoing injustice and a lack of fairness in determining who is recognized as a victim. Those of you who read the Wiki are likely aware of the CDC’s findings on this issue, which show that under fair definitions, men and women both rape and are raped at similar rates—at least within the past 12 months. The lifetime figures reveal a disparity, though that may be due to generational changes such as the millennial shift and other contributing factors. Furthermore, lifetime prevalence statistics have been challenged because of their susceptibility to inaccuracies:
Has ‘lifetime prevalence’ reached the end of its life? An examination of the concept - PMC
Many cross-sectional surveys in psychiatric epidemiology report estimates of lifetime prevalence, and the results consistently show a declining trend with age for such disorders as depression and anxiety. In a closed cohort with no mortality, ...
I must emphasize just how malicious the use of the skewed statistics of rape truly is—utilized to vilify men, and to paint them as animalistic simians that are the primary perpetrators of rape, when ironically, this misrepresentation of facts only serves to prove the gynocentrism within our society, and the immense privilege women hold. It is quite telling that very few studies on made-to-penetrate rape exist, as that would significantly undermine the narrative they cling to.
---
View attachment 1472712
---
View attachment 1472710
---
View attachment 1472711
---
[19] Stemple, L., Flores, A., & Meyer, I. H. (2017). Sexual victimization perpetrated by women: Federal data reveal surprising prevalence. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 302–311.
[20] Caricati, L., Baldini, S., & Bonetti, C. (2023). Female‑to‑Male Sexual Assault: The Role of the Perpetrator’s Attractiveness and Attributed Emotional States on Victim Blame. Violence and Victims, 38(3), 396–413.
[21] https://gwern.net/doc/sociology/2021-dimarco.pdf
[22] Statistics on the Purchasing Power of Women Women and Global Spending
View attachment 1473970
So women basically dictate the economy, control the narrative, hold the purse strings, and still somehow men are "privileged"? This is what a gynocentric society looks like. And yet they still play the victim card like they’re oppressed. How do you control most of the spending and wealth in a country and still act like society is stacked against you?
---
[23] Costa, M., & Maestripieri, D. (2023). Physical and psychosocial correlates of facial attractiveness. Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, 19(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1037/ebs0000331
---
View attachment 1472716
---
[24] The in-group bias of women is another topic I would like to bring forth, as it is a crucial aspect of the subject of gynocentrism, and it grants us the opportunity to better understand female nature, as well as the inherent advantages they possess, and the biases inherent to their psychology. To put it simply, the minds of women are governed by an in-group bias that is 4.5 times stronger than that of men, which is truly disturbing—albeit not surprising. These findings demonstrate a perspicuous reality: women are more likely to favor each other and show increased preference for the well-being of other women—as opposed to men, who do not exhibit a similar bias. In fact, men are more likely to favor women, extol them, and idealize them. This dynamic can clearly be seen in the intrasexual behavior of both sexes, where men are in a perpetual state of competing with each other vehemently, while women exhibit such behavior noticeably less.
---
---
To quote @GeckoBus, who put it very nicely:
---
I must admit—this post is far longer than I originally intended for it to be (even after trimming it significantly), and I highly doubt many of you will read it, but for what it's worth, I enjoyed writing about this topic.
Requested tag: @Stupid Clown
I finally read it all. Amazing thread. This might be one of the best in the whole forum. Good job writting all of this so well.
Thanks, man. I appreciate you taking the time to read this
You're welcome. I don't really have anything to add though, except that I agree on everything.Thanks, man. I appreciate you taking the time to read this
Just out of curiosity, how long did it take you to write all of this ?
I try to write stuff sometimes, but I'm dont have a lot of free time these days, and I struggle a bit to focus for long enough, so I never manage to write as much and as well as I would like to.
I will try to write more though, I like it, and I think it's important.
Well, the research itself spanned across a few weeks, as I wanted to explore the topic from an epistemological angle; I read about certain concepts in philosophy of science and analyzed the patriarchy through those lenses, and once the idea of the thread itself seemed coherent I began writing it — which took roughly three days of sporadic work.
I found this concept map useful for example:
After that, it was primarily about revising and rephrasing parts that seemed dislikable, and I also came across more relevant content online — particularly the image that analyzes how the so-called patriarchy comes into play in the context of incels — which I added; altogether, it took about 2 weeks before I felt comfortable publishing it, especially since I also accidentally posted a half-finished version due to a misclick at some point, thus losing a significant amount of progress. The main part only took about three days though, and the only reason it took that much longer is because I wanted to perfect it as much as possible; it was also about 2,000 words longer originally, so I cut down a significant portion as it felt too long.
I saved when you wrote it and only now had the time to read it. Congrats for the thread, it is better researched than most articles.
Thank you for reading it
I read this thread in its entirety back when I was an lurker in September. You have such an great knack for prose. Also what manual of style do you use?Thank you for reading it
Appreciate it.
Mainly CMOS, but I usually just write how I feel, hence my punctuation is sometimes inconsistent, particularly in spacing of em-dashes or citations.
But theodicy is solvable
You can define evil merely negative, so as a lack of good.
You can define evil merely negative, so as a lack of good.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
