Gender issues- argument from victimhood

 The scenario:

Step 1. Make a generalization about a group that is ideally less than kind.

Step 2. Get eviscerated by the internet

Step 3. Change your name and hide your head in shame.

If you make any negative generalization about women, blacks, gays, Muslims, whatever, normally this is what happens. People, who have images on their profiles with texts like "be kind to others" and whatnot will descend on you like a pack of furies to point out that you cannot and should not generalize in such a way. Which is fair. You really should not. First, because it is morally wrong (you know, it is "-ist", depending on if it is based on race or sex or whatever: racist, sexist, etc.), and it is also stupid because normally real-life evidence does not support it. 

Unless... unless you make remarks about men, especially white men.

Then the scenario will change considerably.

Step 1. Make an insulting generalization about men, depicting women as poor, suffering victims.

Step 2. When someone tries to argue about this, attack their person ("you are the reason we choose the bear" is the newest one, but the good, old "incel" always works)

Step 3. Watch as everyone descends on those people who dare to contradict your bigoted generalization to tear them to shreds. (And they are lucky if it does not impact their employment status...)

This interesting change in outcomes can be seen everywhere. You are absolutely not allowed to make generalizations about, say, Muslims (do try to bring up integration in European culture), while the very same people who label you an Islamophobe will absolutely murder you if you dare to challenge their open misandry. 

The responses normally can be sorted out into these categories:

1. open ad hominem attacks (the above mentioned "you are the reason we choose the bears")

2. how dare you question our experiences? All women are suffering (myself included), and you have no right to question us. Don't dare to mansplain. Especially go away with your statistical evidence. 

3. how dare you give context? (For example, pointing out that domestic violence is not a simplistic "man beats woman" issue.) "Whataboutism", "fragile ego", 'you must be the problem because you are defending abusers', OR, my favorite, "this is a safe space for women's issues, don't bring men's issues into it". But when you do it in a "safe space for men", first of all, you are an incel and a red piller, and then women's issues are immediately brought into the conversation just to show how much worse they have it. Just try it somewhere. Anywhere.

4. Yes, but. Male issues pale in comparison. It is simply not worth talking about them. And Patriarchy hurts men, too. And if you solve women's issues, you solve men's, too.

So yeah. You cannot win, because in the current zeitgeist, women are absolutely oppressed (even though the facts don't actually support this), hence they have the upper hand in the conversation- after all, if you have certified victimhood, you win by default. 

Now this is where I should bring up a sure-fire strategy to win in these conversations, but the fact is you cannot. 

The main problem is that these (mostly) women take an immense amount of glee of bullying people they disagree with into submission, all the while displaying their victimhood status - kind of like the concept of virgin prostitute. Because make no mistake: these people are some of the worst bullies you can find. Ironically, the very same tactic is used against feminists when it comes to trans issues - and they suddenly learn what it means to be bullied in this way, and do not like it very much. And in the case of Kathleen Stock, they demand that men stand by them. Ironic, I guess. 

Especially if it is online, it is best not to engage, because as the saying goes about wrestling with pigs - you both get muddy, and the pig enjoys it (and you cannot win - this is not done on an intellectual level). So however infuriating/sad/worrying it is to read bigoted comments, sometimes open hatred, you cannot do anything. Reporting these comments will do nothing, since, as we already established, these "truths" are universally accepted today. It is just another example of how polarized (and stupid) our society became, where one half of the population is seen as a threat, as something unnecessary, or even as an enemy, essentially by women who probably do not apply the same views to their own male relatives and friends. Nevertheless the "I hate blacks, but you are OK, because I know you" was never a good excuse for racism. Neither is it a good excuse for sexism. Yes, they probably will grow up eventually and realize that men and women mutually need each other, but in the meanwhile these views do an immense amount of damage to young men, to society at large, not to mention these views are propagated to the next batch of young, privileged women enjoying the feeling of victimhood. Or worse, middle aged women blaming all their failures on men. 

The curious case of Ilaria Salist

 It has been quite astonishing to follow this case. The background: there is an admittedly far-right demonstration commemorating the break-out attempt of German and German allied Hungarian forces from the besieged capital, Budapest. Which is quite bad in itself, and brings out the most unsavory characters. Such is life in a (reasonably) free society. You kinda have to tolerate the assholes, too. (You know, freedom of speech and yadda-yadda.)

But it also brought something else out. People from Germany, Italy travelled to Budapest to beat people they deemed neo-Nazis up. With viperas and other 'instruments', no less, essentially making these assaults into potential manslaughter/murder since it is quite easy to kill someone when a group of you jump him or her, beating their head, poking at them and whatnot with a piece of metal. And let me repeat this: the victims were chosen randomly.

Let me repeat this. People from other countries of the EU travelled to Budapest to potentially kill people they thought were neo-Nazis. The way they determined it? Why, anyone wearing black, green or camo is obviously a neo-Nazi. (I guess GAP is selling them clothes, too - I have a green coat which resembles a military-style jacket, bought by my girlfriend. But regardless -the selection criteria is somewhat suspect.)

Even IF the people who these staunch Antifa people were assaulting WERE neo-Nazis, I was not aware that laws did not apply any more. (I guess these "enlightened" foreigners believe that they can ignore the law of lesser nations.)

Funnily the Western media did not really get caught up in this strange chain of events, where foreigners travel to a place explicitly to almost murder the locals. I guess if it was, let's say, Hungarian neo-Nazis (of which there are not many) travelling to Berlin to assault a Pride Parade, we would have heard a lot more of it -which just shows the double standards and hypocrisy of Western media outlets.

That is, until, one of them got caught (actually, more), after assaulting people, and her father kicked up a fuss about it in Italy. First of all, this was a female teacher, so obviously, because it is a woman, we immediately feel that she must be blameless. Second, the Italian press and political establishment immediately jumped into her defense, despite the fact that she assaulted people in a foreign country where she travelled to do so.

So what does the Left in Italy do? They make her a candidate for EP in the EU. A person who almost beat someone to death. 

The reason? "Her candidacy is a positive symbol for the battle of rule of law and fundamental rights in Europe. We stand with our Italian allies against autocrats like Viktor Orbán and his barbaric methods of detention"

So the rule of law involves assaulting people in mobs? Great place Italy must be then. Oh, that is for only the filthy foreigners! Sorry, I forgot. The demagougy of this statement is astonishing. It is also interesting how Italy seeks to interfere with another country's judicial processes. Very democratic. Next thing we know, they send some exploding cigars or military advisors, a'la CIA in the '60s...

Imagine the uproar if the situation was reversed. This is an incredibly good demonstration of what people think of others living in the poorer parts of Europe -an actual example of cultural racism. Obviously if she was caught in Germany, all this would not have happened -but those untermenschen do not matter in the East. They can be beaten to death without us feeling any empathy. We need to save this poor woman!

And then the media-reaction: they immediately establish that the victims were ne-Nazis - which they were not by large. Out of the nine attacked there were plenty not having any connection to the far-right demonstration. But even if they were. OK? Even if they were -which, again, is not true- this is not actually something you would do in a civilized country, such as in Germany or Italy. So what does it say about you when you travel to some other place where you think you are free to do so? Or defend these people, hm? Are we back in the Weimar republic? Should we then allow the far right to beat people they think are Antifa? (Funnily enough, even reddit's very "progressive" community had a somewhat more balanced view on this... I guess not all is lost.)

Just read what the Guardian is writing - she was detained after a counter-demonstration, not after assaulting people. Obviously. Reuters was the only reasonably neutral source of information on this.

Second issue: instead of focusing on what they did, everyone is crying about prison conditions. Good job focusing on the main issue here, I guess. You may as well get the impression that these people were doing charity work and were detained in Iran... There are two things here. Yes, Hungarian prisons are not like the ones in Norway - if you want to be in those, well, do as Breitvik -over there. But neither are they full of rats, despite what the allegations (lies) state. Moreover: if you go to some "poor, backwater" place where you think you can beat people to the edge of death, well, you kinda need to face the realities there if you get caught. You get the same as all the other assholes breaking the law there. No special treatment for your entitled, superior little ass, no transfer to your country for you, ma'm, forgetting all about it, leaving some bloody mess behind. It is not tax evasion you did, but grievous bodily harm -no country will allow you to leave in such circumstances. Enjoy the prison sentence waiting for you in Hungary. You may be released in a couple of years if you behave yourself.

All in all, appalling reporting and appalling reactions to an Antifa action. (And just to repeat the first point: this is not to excuse this whole far-right jamboree happening in Budapest every year. But the problem is there is very little you can do about it in a country that still has vestiges of the rule of law...)

Of bears and men

 So obviously men are problem. So much so, that 99.9% women who responded to the question rather have a chance encounter with a bear in a forest than with an unknown man. (Maybe they misunderstood and like hairy, thick, homosexual men?)

Which goes to show two things, really. People, who responded, are stupid. I mean really, fucking stupid. The education system completely failed. Second: it is incredible how polarized our world has become, where facts matter not, feelings trump everything. And if you are a man, and have an opinion, obviously you are dismissing women and their experiences, and should just shut up. Obviously. (Even though it kinda is about you, too. And really, real world evidence and "muh experience" are kind of different things.)

So the first thing.

Bear attacks are rare. True. But why are they rare you may ask. Well, let's see. Bears are rare, so encounters are rare, despite of people hiking and generally living where bears live. About 1% of chance encounters end up in an attack; which is not a lot, admittedly. (There is no actual statistics; I found a couple of estimates and used the lowest one.) But then again: how many men does a woman encounter on a regular basis and how many bears? If you really think you are safer with a bear than with a random man, even just looking at the numbers, you are -as we established already- fucking stupid. Not many people meet a 100 bears in their lifetime, so the chances of getting attacked by one is astronomically low. But if you regularly met hundreds of bears... well, the situation would change. Drastically. Women meet hundreds and thousands of men regularly, and if 1% of those meetings end up in an attack, well, we have an ongoing bloodbath; Khrone would be proud. Let me put this this way: cows kill hundreds of people every year, whereas lions hardly any. Does it mean cows are more dangerous than lions? Seriously? Well, do try to keep the same number of lions as we have cows, and we would see. Statistics without understanding the context means exactly jackshit.

So that's one issue out of the way.

The other thing is we ignored the fact that most violent acts are committed by a fraction of the population. Mostly men, yes, but women are violent, too, which is left out of the discussion interestingly. Also: men are significantly more likely to be victims of random violence than women. The level of fear and the actual threat may not be in balance here, but then again, it never usually is, considering how much people fear serial killers vs how much they fear cigarettes or ultraprocessed food. We are morons when it comes to things we fear. (Further example: fear of commercial flights vs fear of automobiles.) The issue here is more complex than these idiots would like to believe.

Another also important forgotten issue: if we focus on sexual attacks only, well, those are mostly committed by people close to the victim, so again, no cigar there. A random man will be a safer choice than your uncle, for example, just going by the statistics alone. I am sure your uncle is a nice person who would not rape anyone, but statistically he is more likely to rape you than that dude on the tram. Another interesting sidenote: many women would prefer to be dismembered by a bear than to be raped? Really? That is just... wow. I mean you can't be more stupid that this; which just shows how sheltered and privileged these people are. I guess there is nothing for me but to wish them their bear encounter they crave so much. After all, it is all fun and games until the grizzly starts eating you while you are still alive.

And then the second point I want to make.

The amount of glee, bitterness, outright hatred that stems from this victim menality s incredible. Women do seem to have adopted this hostile attitude against one half of humanity as not just something valid, but something to be embraced. Meanwhile, supposedly, they not all are angry lesbians (who, by the way, have the highest incidence of domestic violence) and have day-to-day encounters with their fathers, husbands, sons. I guess they do not count?  And let's not forget. These women are living the cosy, safe, sheltered life of the Western world, not the oppressive Patriarcy of Saudi Arabia, for example. Anyone spouting this idiocy, and stirring up hatred deserves her 1% chance meeting a bear. Young men already face challenges they get absolutely no support for, so this is not helping. The largest cause of death in men under 40 is suicide. They are more dangerous to themselves than to anyone, especially to those angry and misshapen women who dwell in their imaginary victimhood.

This idiocy perfectly shows the problem with victim mentality. Since you are the victim, you are justified to have absolutely no empathy -and outright hostility- towards the evil oppressors, and you are justified in your hatred. It also helps to foster an incredible level of narcisism. You can see this in all the comment sections whenever men's issues come up - women are so incredibly hostile, ready to belittle, to dismiss, it is incredible. You'd wonder how people who are claiming that empathy is important in uderstanding the struggle of others can so easily dismiss others' struggles.  That is until you realize that strong in-group empathy leads to the lack of it against anyone who is in the out-group. This is exactly how racists operate by the way.

And as a closing, I will present you an alternative version of this tik-tok question, which is much more supported by statistics than the fucking bear is. (Mind you this is for demonstrating the idiocy; I do not actually pushing for this.)

Would you be more willing to be alone in a forest with a white man or a black man? As we know, in the US, blacks are overwhelmingly responsible for violent crime, so this is a valid question, no? And if you do not think it is -based on some weird moral qualms about racism being bad and all-, why the fuck do you think the original question is acceptable, which is not even supported by statistics? Sexism is fine when it comes to men?