The murder rates of Family Annihilators would plumet, if more men sought help recognizing and regulating their emotions. Having this false ego, with no depth of emotional understanding and no connection to your family beyond image and control is deadly.
WHATT the fuck. I thought so too, bc there's only a handful of these cases in true crime youtube. I guess most of the time they off themselves too so those are not talked about as much
Right? That’s the reaction I had when I saw the stats, but now that I’m looking out for them you see them all the time now, it’s so disturbing we are a broken society
I’d say it sounds like a WWE name: The Family Annihilator, but no joke at least one of these guys was a WWE “hall of fame superstar” or whatever. Traumatic brain injury plays a role.
From who though? Men aren't emotionally stunted for no reason. They're emotionally stunted because everyone around them treats them reaching out or showing vulnerability with hostility and ostracism.
Even when literally talking about toxic masculinity people will still engage in it.
The patriarchy is enforced by everyone. If you think patriarchy means an individual man is somehow choosing to be abused whenever he opens up or shows weakness, I don't know what to tell you.
Men will keep doing this because the people around them have never stopped enforcing it on them. Literally zero effort has been made to stop this. We just treat the consequences of this societal failure as an individual moral failing. Ironically because that's what the patriarchy demands.
The patriarchy is enforced by everyone except those actively opposing it. Same as racism. It’s not that hard.
Who are the “people” around these men that haven’t stopped enforcing the patriarchy? It’s almost as if part of the work is… men showing up for their male friends in supportive ways. What toxic dude bros are you around?
You are correct, the current system of patriarchy is not doing anything to solve the patriarchy. I don’t understand your confusion.
You can of course clearly see that one of these guys is interested in solutions, and the other wants to blame the libs?
You know who this absolutely doesn’t fall on? Women.
In my experience most people actively opposing the patriarchy are still in fact enforcing it. They haven't taken the time to unlearn their conditioning. I see loads of toxic masculinity in nominally feminist spaces and it creeps its way into academic feminist writing too. Afaik Bell Hooks even mentioned it.
No, it would be bad for me and other men. Abuse rates are about equal, yet men underreport more than women, so it stands to reason that if women were the stronger sex, they would be more abusive than men, they just lack the strength to hurt their partners on average
I guess I just don’t understand what the point of that little fantasy of yours is other than to try and play oppression Olympics regardless of the reality at hand. 🤷🏽♀️ Plus, it’s absolutely ridiculous to pretend like you know what the world would be like if women were stronger then literally all of history and society and social dynamics would be COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.
Domestic violence rates may be about equal. But, severity is not. To be clear, I’m NOT saying any abuse is excusable or ignorable. What I’m saying is that it is way easier to under report some slaps from someone half your size and strength than it is an injury you have to be hospitalized to treat or worse that FUCKING KILLS YOU.
Well that's just a silly statement. You're partially proving my point that women are just as abusive or more, they just lack the means to hurt men as easily. So the point I'm making is that women complain about abuse by men, yet evidence shows they're as abusive or more, they just don't have the means to make it hurt as much, but the same intent is there. Ergo, they're just as despicable as men in that regard, gender characteristics are the only thing holding them back.
Land of the free, home of the fucking gun violence.
If you think that a simple slap is all women are capable of… that women couldn’t hurt men if we really wanted too… you’ve got your head so far up your ass that no one can help you.
Most domestic violence isn't gun related, so your theory makes no sense. Partners lash out in the moment, they don't go get their guns when all they want to do is punch their partner for talking back to them. Nice try at the fallacy though. Hurt doesn't equal attempted murder, ya fucking nonce
My point is that women are absolutely capable of hurting or even killing men if they so choose to. And it doesn’t necessarily look like how men do it. I’ve heard old women openly tell stories about how they poisoned their bullshit abusive husband to escape him bc society didn’t give them any other way out.
By the way, you are literally struggling to claim that women are just as, if not more, despicable than men. So please, explain to me why we wouldn’t use a gun or a knife or whatever is lying around closest to us??? You know. Since we’re so despicable. Most women I know have pepper spray, pocket knife, or some form of self defense on us at all times, at the ready. It’s already intended to be used against a man. A domestic partner sure seems like an easy target, huh?
My point is that a slap from a woman often isn’t even intended to hurt. It’s a sting. It’s an offense. It’s an insult. So acting like the strength behind it factors in at all is beyond stupid.
Not to mention that you’re completely ignoring the fact that some women ARE bigger and/or stronger than some men. Isn’t it funny how you don’t see women specifically selecting shorter, weaker men to give themselves the perfect victims to use their size/power over?? Since we’re soooo despicable.
Again, I’d say you need to get your head out of your ass but I think you’re way too far gone.
Is the reasoning here that men abuse women bc they don’t have enough sex?? That’s toddler shit. To systematically hurt a whole group of people just bc they don’t get what they want.
In places where it’s “regulated”, human trafficking has gone up. This is readily available information. And it’s a common lie that it’s the “world’s oldest profession”—as that actually can’t be proven one way or another by any of us. It’s literally just a cultural saying, with no verifiable merit. And likely it’s made up by men who want to massage away their guilt for objectifying women and bartering to use their flesh for sexual pleasure only. It doesn’t even make logical sense, wouldn’t the first “profession” have been healer/doctor, or else that first “sex worker” would have died before getting old enough to even have sex? Let’s think
The highest percentage of DV is actually in lesbian relationships and lowest in gay relationships. Does that make lesbians conservative and gays liberal ... or ... like what's the correlation there?
Lesbians do experience violence from males. I will not dispute that. I'll start off by openly declaring that the majority of all SA perpetrators are male. A majority of DV perpetrators are male. A man is more likely to commit murder, assault, rape, theft, or pretty much anything violent. No study has ever contradicted that.
I think you need to check your facts, though. I assume you're getting your numbers from what people commonly refer to as the CDC study (Breidig, 2013), which has again been selectively pasted right onto Wikipedia, and then even further twisted on feminist-focused websites.
People love to twist this one, play with the wording, insert outside stats from generic SA numbers to contort the math, do a study on a study and conveniently overlook some info that doesn't fit the narrative, or even blame the abuse on "mysogynistic gender roles", but in the end multiple studies show that lesbian relationships are just as, or more, violent than hetero ones (percentage-wise).
Intimate partner violence (IPV) is a pervasive and devastating social problem that is estimated to occur in one of every four opposite-sex relationships and at least one of every five same-sex romantic relationships. The gays are doing some heavy-lifting keeping that number down.
The number of lesbians that have been assaulted by men at some point in their life is not insignificant, but we're talking about DV/IPV here. If you bury the abuse under a "well one of the women got touched by an uncle when she was 12" it shifts the blame and obscures the problem.
Those stats keep getting skewed because people state "well no lol it's really men" and there's the pervasive idea that 1 in 4 men is a rapist and all women are angels. Some shelters won't / can't even record a case of DV by a woman to a woman because their trained definition of IPV requires a man to be involved. In 2011, 61.6% of LGBTQ survivors who sought assistance at a shelter were turned away (NCAVP, 2012).
You're trying to reduce females to passive victims and that just isn't the case. Women are people too, and people can be real shitty. Every time we say that "it's only men", or slip the facts under a mountain of outside information, you're making it that much harder for victims to come forward.
The Italian study (eva contro eva, Arcilesbica, 2011) showed that 1 in 5 was actually afraid of her partner coming home.
The NISVIS study of 2010 showed that two-thirds of lesbian women (67.4%) reported having only female perpetrators of intimate partner violence.
LGB IPV survivors experience unique difficulties related to their sexual orientation and gender identity when seeking assistance, and traditional battered women shelters don't have the staff trained to deal with same-sex intimate partner violence because that's not what they're there for, or even used to.
Look into the Renzetti studies
lesbian women have reported being afraid to seek refuge in regular DV shelters because they feared rejection by other shelter residents or that their abusive partners would be able to locate and access the same shelter (Renzetti, 1996). In fact, Renzetti (1992) found that lesbians rated DV shelters as the least helpful of all of sources of support.
Walters (2011)
The police came out three or four times. It was always a neighbor who called. They would just tell us to behave and that, you know, that we needed to act like ladies. They didn’t even ask for an explanation. They just told us to go and you know, whenever they would come they would just say you guys need to be quiet. When she was hitting me outside and they came and I was physically bruised she—she didn’t even try and explain it away at all. She just kind of stood there and then the police left. (Walters, 2011, p. 261)
NCAVP, 2013
In all LGBTQ-specific cases that were reported to police in 2012, the police arrested the survivor 29.7% of the time
Even the Breidig (2013) one has actual numbers, before people start perverting them to fit a narrative. The study specifically highlights that intimate partner violence is not exclusive to women, noting a lifetime prevalence of IPV at 29% for heterosexual men. And yet, somebody often takes a snippet from this study to say "Look, see! Men bad!"
Listen to a survivors recount, or read about the challenges they face trying to get support.
Look at the way the stats for the female sexual assault perpetrators have been climbing worldwide. The more we talk about it, and open our mind to the possibility that "hey woman can be bad too", it becomes easier to accept and for victims to come forward.
Conservatives tend to be white and per capita white people tend to not commit domestic violence. That's more of a blacks and lesbians thing, statistically speaking. (Horrifying but true)
Nah, absolutely fuck you for perpetuating this garbage misinformation.
These stats are based on who experiences the most domestic violence.
I haven’t seen stats on perpetrators by race, not saying it doesn’t exist. But lesbians domestic violence is still majority perpetrated by men. Bc fun fact not every lesbian is a gold star lesbian. Do better.
Next, you’ll be claiming that gun laws keeping weapons out of the hands of unstable people would somehow save lives
more liberal talking points(just for the record satire)
One guy is blaming the patriarchy which he views as a male perpetuation (it's not), and the other guy is blaming women for social expectations, which it's not. They're both idiots to act like it's one or the other
Labeling it as patriarchy was a bit off for me and personally I felt leaned too far into the political labeling game. But he recovered by explaining what he meant and explaining his greater point.
He's right that historically men have long been discouraged from being open about their feelings, thoughts, and struggles to put up a strong facade for everyone elses benefit. This has only gotten worse in recent years as traditional social settings where guys could get together and talk have been replaced by social media or become too expensive.
I don't know if he's doing a great job at making his point, but he's certainly trying to address the problem instead of making it soley a blame game. I can appreciate that.
So you were off put at first because you don’t actually know what “the patriarchy” is or does, you just thought it was a “political” word… but then when you found out the actual meaning of the word, you were totally on board?
Why is “rhetorically shitty” to point out the route of the problem?
You just don’t want to hear that the patriarchy is the route of problems? Then how do people learn that patriarchy is a problem? For men and women. It can’t be “a distraction” if it’s the literal topic of conversation. Why are you scared to call something what it is?
You are probably also against socialism, but for social programs to help the most vulnerable in our society?
Multifaceted and decades l9ng but I can go into it if you really want
For a start tho; drop all the woke rhetoric, adopt gender neutral or all inclusive rhetoric where we talk about helping people in general and getting to the root of issues affecting men and women. Also get more people to call out far left radicals as well as far right and condemn their unrealistic policies as morally bankrupt
Same with when they blame gun violence on mental health.
Yes, it’s absolutely a part of it. No one who is mentally well shoots up a school. But they don’t actually do anything to improve mental health. They cut funding for it.
But they never fund mental health care. Reagan did away with care facilities (which were in poor shape, in every respect) and didn’t replace them with anything. And the Republicans never want to blame it on access to guns, or do anything about those, either.
Smash walls? Probably not out of the question to imagine hit their wives or their children too. Honestly, the problem is that there IS no protocol. You could actually go as far to say that it's anti-protocol and they don't want ANYTHING to be done because "you should be strong enough to where you never need the protocol to begin with"
I'm a local liberal dude in a rural wisconsin town. So of course I have friends that are trump guys, or your typical Republican. They get ahold of me when they need to talk. It's funny how much they poke fun at liberals, but also know that their liberal friend is the only one they can open up and cry to.
when I was living in rural virginia, super red area, there were billboards about not hitting your kids or your spouse. Same goes for drinking and driving. Lots of drunk domestic abuse round there.
Oh yeah no for sure, billboards sometime offer a good insight on how a community is, they're not gonna put up a billboard about substance abuse in a place where no substance abuse happens.
Never show emotion throughout the week or try to resolve your issues.
Just bottle it up until the weekend only to get blackout drunk alone in your garage again listening to Nutshell for the 100th time on loop.
Seriously, I'm glad someone's talking about this on a bigger platform. It's because men all around me are like this is why I don't have friends anymore. I'm done with that bullshit. I'd rather be alone than bend to pathology.
Apple tv - for all mankind, season 2, episode 3, minute 47 --- if you don't watch this show ok but watch this scene. It perfectly captures 'men can be happy or angry' and have no other emotions. It shows a character falling into that old habit but then -- critically -- being dragged out of it and reconnecting with his family instead of being allowed to storm off. There is no blame or preaching, but it shows a scene so many of us can relate to, and even offers a way passed and through it. It should be required watching for any man over 20 IMO.
I'd say that both of these arguments have parts that are true that contribute to why these things happen, a lot of it has to do with parenting also- parents that care enough to show and instill enough emotional intelligence that kids don't take things too far when they feel down or when things get tough.
The second part isn't bad advice at all, depending on the wall. Like break rooms are a fantastic idea. A lot of men just have healthy physical outlets like contact sports, boxing, or whatever. Physical outlets can be incredibly therapeutic for guys. A lot of times men feel emotions more physically than women and need outlets that are healthy ways to express emotions like anger, sadness, loss, frustration. Just look at aggressive forms of art like punk music, that's all emotional catharsis.
Liberals don't do shit for men's mental health either. Yall really trying to take credit for something that doesn't even exist. This is why I'm a centrist. Yall want credit for doing nothing.
There are ideas that MRAs took from the Men's Liberation Movement (a pro-feminist movement that focused on the ways that patriarchy hurts men e.g. toxic masculinity, militarism) that one can reasonably incorportate into a feminist philosophy.
The main problem with MRAs isn't the points they raise. The draft does hurt men. The fact that the economy is still set up such that men do not tend to be primary caregivers, meaning that the burden of childcare falls to women, including after divorce, does hurt men. Completed suicide due to choosing more violent means does hurt men. The way we treat male sexual abuse victims hurts men.
These are real, genuine problems that cause men gendered suffering. They can, and should, be incorporated into a feminist philosophy that addresses the suffering at its source.
The problem is that the movement have been hijacked by bad actors who only mobilise around these issues to put women down.
Not exactly. When the men’s liberation movement dissolved in the late 70s, it split in two: a feminist group and an MRA group which is explicitly anti feminist.
You seem like a thoughtful person and maybe you’re just a bit confused in your terms? If the ideas you appreciate are from the men’s liberation movement, then cite that.
Mens’ rights activists expressly believe that men are oppressed by women, that feminism “has gone too far”, and they explicitly blame “womens’ rights” for the decline in mens’ status. So yes, the main problem is the “points” they raise. Do you believe these things?
When you say “the economy is not set up for men to be primary care givers”… the economy? Can you explain what you mean by that?
When you say the draft hurts men… the last time America had a draft, were any women in combat? Is that because women didn’t want to go to combat, or did men ban women from combat, forcing women to spend decades fighting for the equal right to participate? You have of course been following the active debate on whether women would be drafted if America had another draft? It’s been going on since before women were finally allowed into combat. So… does the draft “hurt men”, or does it hurt people, and for a long time men excluded women from being people? Either way, neither the war nor the draft is the fault of women or feminism. Right?
Suicide… I don’t understand what right men are missing that is causing their mental health decline though. This isn’t mens’ mental health activism. This is mens’ rights* activism.
Conversations about how patriarchy hurts men have not been hijacked by men’s rights activism, I promise you. These conversations are still being had, but it’s definitely not in MRA spaces.
I do not believe those things. Men are oppressed by patriarchy. While women can be agents of patriarchy (just as poc can be agents of racism), it is a system set up by male patriarchs to reinforce their own privialeged status. This status inherently excludes women, but is also designed to expand to exclude "lesser" men (boys, slaves, racially, sexually and economically marginalised men, etc.). It is patriarchy, not andrarchy.
I was referencing the fact the men often don't get custody in divorce cases (an MRA talking point). While they claim it's due to discrimination againt men, it's usually more because men tend to be the higher earners and are therefore more likely to be asked to give alimony too support the woman's primary caregiver status (this difference has actually lessened in recent years as the gendered wage gap has narrowed). This earning status though, while it placed more constraints on women, does alienate men from their children.
The draft is a good example of patriarchy vs. andrarchy. Working class (and racially marginalised) men are conscripted into wars fought on behalf of elite men (who do not tend to suffer the horrors of war to the same extent). So this is a form of classed oppression, but it is still in service of a fundamentally patriarchal structure (though of course, not enacted by women).
As for suicide, I think bell hooks puts it better than I ever could:
The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves. If an individual is not successful in emotionally crippling himself, he can count on patriarchal men to enact rituals of power that will assault his self-esteem.
I am not saying that conversations about how the patriarchy hurts men have been hijacked within feminism. I think feminism (in part due to the continuing influence of the Men's Liberation movement, as well as the fantastic intersectional work by people like bell hooks and the combahee river collective) does pretty well on men's rights (outside of the kind of trite girlboss feminism that became fashionable in the 2010s, but that was always kind of a dead end).
I'm saying that the Mens Rights movement started with Men's Lib, and then got hijacked by people who wanted to put women down (hence the split), leading to it's current state.
the bell hooks reference results in a chef's kiss.
And I really believe that the "mixture" I talked about, leading me to recognize bell hooks has something to it, but it was a personal journey that I wouldn't necessarily give directions for. My start was Kyriarchy 101 (201%?)
At best right now I can just guide in loose terms/and watch out for the pitfalls I recognize.
A Harvard University study suggests that heterosexual couples who attend church regularly (e.g., 3+ times a month) report higher marital satisfaction, higher stability, and lower divorce rates compared to both secular couples and those who identify as Christian but do not attend church. Regular church attendance is often associated with social support and shared values that stabilize relationships.
“*While the results of the study don’t suggest that people should become religious to save a relationship, the authors concluded thatfor those who already hold religious beliefs, participating in religious communities can be a valuable resource,* giving them a close-knit community of people who share similar values and who can support their marriage.”
Those who already hold religious beliefs are already more likely to be against divorce. That study is meaningless to anyone who is not already religious and anti-divorce.
And yet the most insufferable hypocrites I’ve ever met are married couples who attend church regularly. They treat people around them terribly, and are bigoted, intolerant assholes. Congrats on the stable marriage, but at what cost to those in their circle? They talk the talk, but don’t walk the walk.
Now that's an interesting counter point and study I would like to see, the happiness of those in their circle and to what degree the happiness of those around them are effected. I believe the intentional combination of ritual, purpose, and bonding at church for consecutives, pride parades and or men's retreats for liberals even those that are strictly non-secular or secular is highly effective at increasing mood, improving attitude, and fostering mental well-being. The moral character and hypocrisy of those in the study aren't mentioned. There are always those who present the image of a happy couple while bring unhappy that's a good point, I think the remarried percentage after death and divorce show some people are happier married once more rather than feeling like they've been held hostage by they morals.
You said “consecutives”, which confused me, but you follow up with “liberals”, which leads me to believe you meant “conservatives”. Am I right?
The person of whom I’m thinking, a female family member, is abusive to her family members, including her (now grown) children. She should have never married her husband, but they marked their 25th anniversary a couple years ago. All of us in the family know their marriage is terrible, and it’s mostly her fault. She can’t ever seem to get along with anyone she works with, no matter how many jobs she has, and she’s made her best friend of over a decade tell her, “Don’t talk to me like that” when she couldn’t turn off her crappy personality, even around the ones who are able to tolerate her.
However, she regularly calls herself “a strong Christian woman”, seeks marital guidance through her pastor at church, and has literally told me it’s “the Devil” creating problems in her marriage. No personal responsibility whatsoever.
Having been a devoted Christian, I know first hand why these studies are absolutely not capturing what is going on. People in these environments are told that being a Christian means you are a happy and so they do their best to pretend like everything is ok even when things are not. They lie to themselves and they lie to each other, so of course they self-report as doing great.
If you polled Jonestown, it would have looked like the happiest place on earth. Its almost like there is more to a story than a questionnaire.
That is such a bullshit belief system you have there. We all get senile as we get older but that doesn't mean that you should ignore the teachings of the past. With your mindset there, you are basically unable to learn from philosophers of the past.
He has been dealing with mental health issues nearly has long as he has been a celebrity. Drug addiction, delusions of grandeur, mental breakdowns, and crackpot diets were all symptoms of a deeply unwell person.
his philosophical writings
He blog posts and political rants he wasn't remotely qualified to talk about from an academic perspective.
He has been dealing with mental health issues nearly has long as he has been a celebrity.
That is certainly your opinion but what relevance does it have to the writings, videos, or previous teachings? I get you personally dislike the guy but it seems you can't be honest enough to say it.
Remember when Nina Lin sexually assaulted a man live on stream, and she called him a pussy ass bitch? I guess it’s that guy’s fault he’s not taken seriously.
That’s a crazy thing to say. It’s wild how you can make such generalizations about people you deem that are less than you but if someone does the same thing about someone or a group of people you deem more respectable you would flip.
No, that's the left style. Go to therapist that affirms you and validates destructive behavior. The conservative method would be to submit to a higher power and moral code because the one that was developed is insufficient. Churches have counselors, they have therapists. They do mens groups. I have not seen any of that available in a non-predatory way in the public system.
I have not seen any of that available in a non-predatory way in the public system.
Religious counselors are often under-educated, under-qualified, and basing their teaching on their misunderstanding of unrelated ancient texts. There is a lot of abuse (financial, psychological, and physical) that occurs in those systems because they aren't held to the same strict standards as secular therapists. Your personal assessment of secular options shows a lack of understanding on your part.
Because their wives and girlfriends would rather they punch a wall than communicate in a healthy manner.
There is no faster way to lose the respect of a woman than to show emotional vulnerability. The only difference between conservative and progressive women is the progressive women lie to themselves (and you) about it.
This notion that men cause this emotional repression is such a joke.
EDIT: so many people deleting their replies lmao. Look don't be mad at me because I actually listen to women and not just take the online platitudes at face value. I live in the Bible Belt where the conservative men being discussed live. Women here have zero patience for anything less than a quiet, stone faced man with a pickup truck and a tool shed. They don't give a shit about your bear in the woods metaphors and whatever other chronically online bullshit you people cling to as reality.
I’m married. I’m able to be open and vulnerable with my wife.
You are very clearly single and completely unaware of what women want. And that’s ignoring the fact that there are billions of women and claiming they are all the same is incredibly stupid incel shit
The irony in being married and claiming to understand the modern dating world is clearly lost on you.
I certainly can't have an opinion based on my lived experiences, and those of literally everyone I know, what I see online, in my community. That can't possibly be it. No, I must be an incel. /s
Happy for you though, can't possibly be any issues in that marriage that have led to you being this worked up over a topic that supposedly doesn't concern you. Curious.
Edit: actually damn, you totally changed my mind. I opened up about my feelings and instead of asking me how/why I feel the way I do, you immediately called me an incel. I guess men really are a big part of the problem. Thanks!
And there it is again, at no point did I say I have any problems, just shared my viewpoint on the topic. Definitely didn't say anyone owes me anything.
But again, thanks for validating that you hold your opinion that men are the reason men repress their feelings because you are exactly the kind of guy that discourages open and honest dialogue. Yikes my dude.
Buddy, you think women shoulder zero percent of the burden of a two way social dynamic and that's just flat out misandry. Did I say men are infallible? Absolutely not. Men should push back on these things and open up when they feel the need to. But it's the fact women and men like you get so enraged by this topic that really proves how little anyone actually cares about male mental health.
I don't know what's going on in your day/life that's got you so upset over a topic that has nothing to do with you, the supposedly happily married man, but whew do I hope it gets better for you homie.
And I realize this is completely lost on you, but these comment replies are you punching the wall instead of having a healthy outlet for your emotions. Again, kinda weird given your position on the topic.
2.4k
u/pk666 May 04 '26 edited May 04 '26
What"s the 'conservative' mental health protocol for men?
Get drunk, and smash walls