re: Boy Crisis of 2025, Meet the ‘Boy Problem’ of the 1900s

quote:

---

Blame survival instincts.

---

Its not, if anything you owe men a lot for your safety every day.

Its anti survival.

Like any phobia.

quote:

---

You are dealing with a trolling water Buffalo.

---

I know I have a OCD logic problem lol.

quote:

---

Its not, if anything you owe men a lot for your safety every day.

Its anti survival.

Like any phobia.

---

Not every man hurts girls and women but plenty of them do.

quote:

---

Women commit more crimes against children.

---

Women also batter men in the context of domestic violence at rates roughly equal to men battering women.

Straus (1980) found that wives attack non-violent husbands at pretty much the same rate that husbands attacked non-violent wives. (Which debunks the theory that it's always in self-defense when the woman does it).

Mercy and Saltzman (1989) reported that husbands and wives were nearly
equal in risk of being physically abused by their spouses.

Malone, Tyree, and O'Leary (1989) also found that men and women report experiencing and engaging in similar amounts of physical aggression against their spouses.

Steinmetz (1978) reviewed several studies in which homicide rates of spouses, with husbands and wives as offenders, are nearly identical as well.

Arias and Johnson (1989) in using the CTS found no significant differences between percentages of women and men reporting their use of violence or
their victimization in dating relationships among college students. In addition, it was found that overall, males and females about equally often reported
initiating, committing, and sustaining violence (Makepeace,1986).

Where you see studies that show otherwise, it's because they are looking at arrest rates or conviction rates or some metric that involves the incident being reported.

Men simply don't report the assaults at nearly the rates that women do.

Also, it's notable that men are usually capable of doing more damage when they assault a women than the other way around. Women can always use a foreign object or sneak up behind a man and hit him when he's not looking, etc., but that's not always how the assault happens.

This is very similar to sexual assault. Sometimes a sexual assault is really a sexual assault. Sometimes what constitutes a sexual assault in this day and time could be no more than unwanted touching, like a pat on the butt.

Things that women also do to men.

The difference is that men don't report incidences like that nearly as often as women.

Again, I'm in no way saying that that accounts for all incidences of sexual assault or rape. Just that if men reported most incidents of unwanted touching or similar incidents like modern women tend to do, the numbers would be more even than they look right now. And no, they still wouldn't be even. But they would be more even.

quote:

---

It also says we still live in a patriarchy, yet we all know that is not even close to being true

---

Oh no, it's definitely true.

We will never not live in a patriarchy; it's impossible.

But not for the reasons that she thinks. It has nothing to do with the fact that 3 out of 5 lawmakers are men or some such nonsense as that, as though if women were to gain more positions of power it would mean that they could change society to suit what the average women would like.

It's because men have a monopoly on force.

Let me explain.

Women can use force and can assault men on an individual level, etc. But collectively, if all the men in the United States decided tomorrow that they were going to completely subjugate women, strip them of all rights, and put them in cages and just haul them out for sex and breeding, there's nothing women could do about it collectively.

In a collective clash of force, women would lose. Every. Single. Time.

Yes, even if they tried to defend themselves with guns/weapons as equalizers. They would still lose and it wouldn't be close.

There are examples of countries in which men subjugate women in the world today, right now. Within 48 hours of us leaving Afghanistan, for example, they were already rolling women's rights back in that country. We were the only thing keeping men in that country from doing it and as soon as we left, they did.

Yet there is no national example in all of recorded human history that I am aware of in which women have subjugated men in a similar manner. And there never will be. Because they can't.

"Yeah, but that would never happen because we have laws and a Constitution and this institution and that institution, etc., etc., etc."

And all of those institutions and laws and constitutions and charters are meaningless without an enforcement arm. Our institutions, etc., only have as much power as our ability to enforce them.

And men do the enforcing.

I understand that we think of society in terms of top-down authority, we don't think of society in terms of bottom-up, but that's where the real power lies. In enforcement. We're scared of the government, but there's a whole lot more of us than there are of them.

I'm not calling for a revolt or anything, nor am I saying one is likely.

I'm just pointing out that we still DO live in a patriarchy, and we always will, no matter how many Senate seats women have or whether there is a female POTUS or not. All the rights that women have are allowed them by the men who enforce the laws and back the institutions that protect those rights.

If you doubt it, look around the world. Men don't always protect women's rights in some places in the world, even today in 2025.

And to your point, men have allowed society to become feminized and masculinity despised and men villainized. That's true. But it's not because women are any more capable of subjugating men than they've ever been. Men have allowed this to happen.

Again, I'm not advocating for revolt, revolution, the subjugation of women, or anything of the sort. Just posting the reality of the situation.

This should be required reading in all education curriculums

LINK

quote:

---

Its been anti-men once the 80s came to a close...

---

try again

this started with the feminization of education in order to increase female graduation and college attendance rates. Mid 70's I think

quote:

---

this started with the feminization of education

---

Yep.

We've got vapid women helping raising our children and think nothing of it.

quote:

---

We've got vapid women helping raising our children and think nothing of it

---

There is one in this thread