Let's be the men who want the men who want women to be quiet to be quiet.
(Buffalo x8)
this post was submitted on 14 May 2026
110 points (100.0% liked)
politics
29762 readers
1646 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
If They want to live like medieval lords. They Should treat them the same energy.
My wife's voice is my favorite part of her (and she is very pretty, but she is an amazing vocalist). Also the way she uses it. She speaks up for great things. I think I had a point, but I got distracted sorry
I've got some good friends up near Moscow (Idaho) and while they're pretty sane (just your average normal cool weirdo. Nothing like a boring normal person, an interesting person) they say weird shit is always afoot
Men who aren't insecure don't feel the need to assert their superiority over women. Or people of color. Or gays, lesbians, people with disabilities or anybody else.
Men who are inferior to their fellow men, are always most anxious to establish their superiority over women.
-Mary Wollstonecraft
Well, there's someone out there for everyone. I'm a woman with an admittedly annoying squeaky voice & frustrating cadence & stuttering due to trauma that will never heal (all why I prefer writing), but my body is smokin hot & fine as fuck because exercise & nutrition are my passion. So if there are men out there who would still love to keep me around to look at & touch & play with, with no expectations of me saying anything profound or satisfying or useful, I can keep my mouth shut just let me spend as much time exercising & working out & we'll all be happily ever after.
Yeah but do you want him to be a raging misogynist? Or do you just want a deaf guy?
As if those are the only two types of men in the world? If so, which one are you? Misogynistic? Or deaf?
Not a man, but am deaf actually. The article is about misogynists. Deaf just completely solves the problem you're talking about.
I'll bet your voice is fine.
I assure you it's not. Every man who approaches me because they're interested in what I look like, as soon as I start talking, they start looking for an exit from the conversation and they leave.
I like fun voices. And you got a smokin' hot bod? You and I would get along just fine.
Well the hard part is I also have high standards in men. They have to be smokin hot & obsessed with health too. Haven't found one of those who can tolerate my squeaky voice, my utter uselessness, because I also refuse to cook food for anyone. IMO every adult should be capable of feeding themselves. Pisses me off when men expect women to cook for them.
Okay, you might be part of the problem. A little lowering of expectations might be a good idea. People shouldn't be so judgmental, they miss out on a lot of interesting surprises.
And what's with the cooking thing? You just cook for yourself, and eat it in front of the other hungry people? If you're cooking for one, you cook for the others in the house, too, or at least offer. And you take turns, because cooking is fun. We actually fight (well, discuss) about it in our house, because most nights there is more than one person who wants to cook dinner.
OTOH, If someone EXPECTS you to be providing dinner every night, and won't cook themselves, that's a problem. They're going to starve.
The foods I eat are extremely healthy & don't taste good to anyone but me. I'm not a Goddamn chef. I HATE COOKING! Go to a restaurant if you want a chef. The last boyfriend I had, his house was full of junk food and I had to cook him his own separate junk that I would never eat, and it compromised my own health. I put so much effort into taking care of myself, I don't have any energy to take care of anybody else. I go to work & I go to the gym. Feed your own damn self. I'm busy & exhausted.
So maybe other people should change, not me. I'm at the pinnacle of health. Why should I lower my standards? Other people should raise their standards. Why do people want to eat junk & feel like shit? Why should I lower my standards to meet them down there? You expect everybody to feel like shit just because you do? If every individual person takes care of their health, the world will be full of healthy people feeling good & smokin hot attractive. Because that's all attractiveness is. It's being healthy from the inside.
I just need speech therapy!!
I am a retired chef. I can guarantee that I could make the foods you like to eat tasty for all. I mention this because, given the various flags you've mentioned, an actual chef might be a good match for you. Generally speaking we like cooking for other people. The one down side you'll have is that the adage "do not trust a skinny chef," is there for a reason. I'm in decent shape for a chef, but still about 10-20 pounds overweight. It's because we are constantly having to taste the dishes, so monitoring my caloric intake while working is damn near impossible. Doesn't mean I don't spend time in the pool and surfing, just means that I eat really good food frequently.
Find another chef though, I'm not available.
Oh, and just so you know, the not cooking thing isn't just men. I've had to teach every girlfriend I've had, except one, how to cook. Had to ban one of them from my kitchen because she kept scorching my expensive pans.
oh you teasing flirt ;)
Masculinism has been a great gift, because factions with different views on, say, protectionism or Israel or Big Tech can all agree on the overreach of feminism and the need for a return to traditional gender roles. Far from being a fringe belief system, masculinism has become the single most important force uniting the American right, bringing together an unlikely constellation of pastors, posters, senators, preachers, influencers, podcasters, and fanboys.
Misogyny was the first bigotry and the model for all the others. No wonder it's the connective tissue of the American Right.
If someone wants to pay me my salary to sit home and be quiet, I'm down for it. Any takers? Anybody?
-crickets-
Welp, guess I gotta keep working and paying taxes and all that good stuff. And if I'm paying taxes, then you bet your bippy I'm going to have opinions about things and vote accordingly.
It does seem like that modem right is just incels and other misogynists who escaped their Internet containment to become a political force. Why any women votes for and Republican let alone become one is beyond me? Same with anyone who loves (or even likes) a women in their life. What a bunch of weirdos
Some people hate their own agency. They want to be told what to do by a ‘higher power’, whether that’s God, men, a cult leader… that way they can safely say nothing in life is their fault.
It’s the adult version of wrapping themselves in a blanket because they’re scared of something. That something being their own choices, or worse, random chance, leading them to fail.
But those who desire control often desire both to be subject to it and to exert it over others. So a hierarchy forms. Men tell those women what to do, and in turn they tell those lower on the ‘ladder’ (younger women, children, and in their ideal world ‘others’ like PoC) what to do. Thus everything in their life is controlled, and they feel safe. And they get to have a little power of their own, again without real responsibility, because they’re just underlings for someone ‘higher on the ladder’.
Yeah, freedom is hard and scary. When you're free you're capable of making the wrong choice. You bear the responsibility for your actions and decisions and there's always the possibility that the other shoe from one of your decisions will drop. These women don't understand that a lot of these men are arrogant buffoons who won't listen to wisdom if it comes out of a female mouth unless they already thought it.
I believe the solution is community support and social safety nets. When we minimize some of the risks freedom feels better, but on some level it will always be scary.
These people could just accept that what they want is to have a partner who they agree is in charge, but no they insist on trying to force every woman to submit to men.
Unfortunately pared with this attitude is the magic thinking that ‘as long as everyone follows The Rules and keeps to Their Proper Place then nothing bad will happen ever’. They literally believe that The Hierarchy is the only thing keeping civilization from disintegrating into chaos.
It’s not that they don’t realize they’re buffoons, it’s that the buffoons are ‘following The Rules’ and so are they, so that buffoonery will never be turned on them.
Paired with this is the belief that everyone thinks exactly as they do, just some people are too stupid to realize it. So they need to exert The Rules and The Hierarchy to help those poor other people see sense.
Wilson believes that women should “not ordinarily” hold political office, and should never serve in combat roles in the military. Husbands should have dominion over misbehaving wives’ weight, spending habits, and choice of television programs. His uncompromising vision for America was once considered marginal, the conservative writer Karen Swallow Prior told me. Since his elevation by Hegseth, however, “no one can credibly say that Doug Wilson is fringe anymore.”
Wilson is a prominent voice in what is sometimes called “masculinism”: a movement to fight back against the advances of feminism and reassert the primacy of men. His version is religious, influenced by the notion of male “headship” of the family and Saint Paul’s belief that godly women should “be quiet.” There are also plenty of secular masculinists, as well as nominally Muslim ones, such as the streamer Sneako, the self-proclaimed pimp Andrew Tate, and the podcaster Myron Gaines. Woman-bashing plays well on social media and sells lots of ads for crypto, sports betting, and supplements. You can make good money telling men that they’re the truly oppressed sex.
I think the problem is it's become a binary argument where either women are independent or men get to control them...
If those are the only two option, women are fucked.
That's like Martin trying to win without Malcolm.
Those men need to be reminded that the opposite of their views isn't everyone being equal, it's those men having their agency and control removed and treated like someone else property.
Once people understand that, "everyone is equal" sounds a lot more attractive.
Yeah. These men just think otherwise because we have no evidence of a female dominated society to even an extent approaching mildly male dominated societies. What we have evidence of happening in real life is: male dominated societies, societies that strive for gender equality, and mixed power societies (eg women control the home, men control war). Female dominated societies are a porn trope or a rhetorical device for fiction.
Even the real life Amazons (the Scythians) were shockingly egalitarian when we look at them through accounts and evidence that wasn't Greek stories.
Misogyny & the right: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2024.2445637#abstract
Andrarchy/misogyny is THE bedrock prejudice, & all other racisms/classisms are secondary.
Due to the false-framing of the original-article, that it's local a problem, here are evidences of it being global:
< I asked an LLM to find me the one on women's rights vanishing in zionism >
It appears you are referring to a widely circulated 2023 opinion piece or reportage by Haaretz, a major Israeli newspaper, which discusses the decline of women's rights in Israel under the current political climate. While several articles touch on this theme, the most prominent one—often cited by international observers—is an opinion piece by Netta Ahituv titled "Women’s Rights Are Vanishing in the New Zionism" (or similar variations depending on the translation).
Key Arguments of the Article
The article argues that the rise of religious nationalist factions within the Israeli government has led to a systematic "vanishing" of women from public spaces and decision-making roles. Key points highlighted include:
- Exclusion from Public Life: The piece documents a growing trend of gender segregation in public transportation, higher education, and military ceremonies, which the author views as a reversal of decades of progress (Helms, n.d.).
- Political Underrepresentation: It points out that the 37th Israeli government initially featured significantly fewer women in ministerial positions compared to its predecessor, reflecting a shift in priorities where women's rights are no longer a central concern for the "New Zionism" (Helms, n.d.).
- Impact of Judicial Reform: Many Israeli women's rights activists, as reported in Haaretz and The Times of Israel, have expressed fear that proposed judicial changes would strip away the Supreme Court's power to protect women against discriminatory laws passed by religious parties.
- Intersection of Religion and State: The article suggests that because there is no formal separation of religion and state in Israel, the increased political power of ultra-Orthodox and Haredi parties directly translates to more restrictive rules for women (Helms, n.d.; Caplan, 2003).
Similar Coverage in Jewish/Israeli Media
If that specific article isn't the one you're looking for, the following publications frequently cover the same "vanishing rights" beat:
- +972 Magazine: An independent, non-profit magazine run by a group of Israeli and Palestinian journalists. They often run critical essays on how Zionism and military occupation intersect to suppress both Jewish and Palestinian women's agency (Devendra, 2026; Grinberg & Aharoni, 2024).
- The Times of Israel: While generally more centrist, they have extensively covered the "Women in Black" and "Tal'at" movements, which protest the erasure of women's voices in the national discourse (Devendra, 2026; Grinberg & Aharoni, 2024).
References
Caplan, K. (2003). The internal popular discourse of Israeli Haredi women. Archives de sciences sociales des religions, (123), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.4000/assr.1069 Cited by: 33
Devendra, N. (2026). Feminism of the besieged: The case of the Tal’at movement. British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/13530194.2026.2639511
Grinberg, O., & Aharoni, S. B. (2024). The human rights archival gap: Ethno-archiving the silencing of radical activism and Israel’s violence against Palestinian women. The International Journal of Human Rights, 29(2), 129–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2024.2383733 Cited by: 3
Helms, M. (n.d.). How does religion affect Jewish women’s rights in Israel? – Podcast. Israel's Divides. https://opentext.ku.edu/israelsdivides/chapter/womens-rights/
Christofascism's "biblical" bulls+cows "relationship" is what we, in our culture, are encountering.
Therefore we're more likely to be knowing it than the misogyny that other parts of the world, other cultures, are embodying..
Islamists .. anybody here remember when the Taliban put a bullet in Malala Yousafzai's face, because she was a girl who advocated for education-rights?
I do.
Afghanistan's reversion to the bulls+cows "relationship" has been as baldfaced as can be.
Apparently G-D was incompetent & wrong, to have put spectacular LivingPotential in the lives of girls+women among our planet, & they're MAKING G-D's mistake be corrected..
< the millions of missing women genocide >
The phenomenon you are referring to is known as the "Missing Women" crisis. It was first famously quantified by Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen in a landmark 1990 essay, using data from the decennial Indian Census and other international demographic benchmarks (Sen, 1990).
Key Data and Findings
The core finding of this research is that in parts of the world—most notably India and China—the ratio of women to men is significantly lower than in regions where women and men receive similar medical care and nutrition (Anderson & Ray, 2010).
- The Original Estimate: In 1990, Sen estimated that more than 100 million women were "missing" worldwide (Sen, 1990). He calculated this by comparing the actual female-to-male ratio in these countries against the ratio found in developed nations (like those in Europe or North America), where the ratio is typically around 1.05 or 1.06 females for every male (Sen, 1990; Jha et al., 2011).
- India’s Specific Figures: Using Indian Census data, Sen later calculated that approximately 37 million women were missing in India by the early 1990s (Sen, 1992). More recent analysis of the 2011 Census revealed that the "Child Sex Ratio" (ages 0–6) had dropped to an all-time low of 914 girls for every 1,000 boys, suggesting that the gap has continued to widen in younger generations despite overall increases in female life expectancy (John, 2011).
- Drivers of the Deficit: Research indicates that the deficit is caused by a combination of factors:
- Natality Inequality: The use of ultrasound for sex-selective abortion of female fetuses (Jha et al., 2006, 2011).
- Mortality Inequality: Higher mortality rates for female children and adult women due to neglect in nutrition and healthcare (Anderson & Ray, 2010).
Trustworthy Resources
For accurate and academic-grade information, you can refer to these primary sources:
- More Than 100 Million Women Are Missing: Amartya Sen’s original 1990 article in The New York Review of Books.
- The Lancet: Trends in selective abortions of girls in India: A 2011 study by Prabhat Jha et al. that uses 1991–2011 Census data to track the millions of missing girls specifically from selective abortions (Jha et al., 2011).
- The Age Distribution of Missing Women in India: A study by Anderson and Ray (2010) that breaks down how missing women in India are distributed across different age groups, showing that the issue persists throughout a woman's life, not just at birth.
References
Anderson, S., & Ray, D. (2010). Missing women: Age and disease. The Review of Economic Studies, 77(4), 1262–1300. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdq019 Cited by: 116
Jha, P., Kesler, M. A., Kumar, R., Ram, F., Ram, U., Aleksandrowicz, L., Bassani, D. G., Chandra, S., & Banthia, J. K. (2011). Trends in selective abortions of girls in India: Analysis of nationally representative birth histories from 1990 to 2005 and census data from 1991 to 2011. The Lancet, 377(9781), 1921–1928. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(11)60649-1 Cited by: 426
Jha, P., Kumar, R., Vasa, P., Dhingra, N., Thiruchelvam, D., & Moineddin, R. (2006). Low male-to-female sex ratio of children born in India: National survey of 1.1 million households. The Lancet, 367(9506), 211–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(06)67930-0 Cited by: 625
John, M. E. (2011). Census 2011: Governing populations and the girl child. Economic and Political Weekly, 46(16), 10–12. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23018151 Cited by: 49
Sen, A. (1990). More than 100 million women are missing. The New York Review of Books, 37(20), 61–66.
Sen, A. (1992). Missing women. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 304(6827), 587–588. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.304.6827.587
I've ripped-out the bogo-links & that's about it.
See the forest, not just the near-trees.
This is a millenia-long genociding that's been going on, & so long as we ignore the totality-of-it, we're helping it perpetuate, through our ignoring.
That isn't a world-viable path/vector, now: we have to get upright if we are to be viable, through The Great Filter.
_ /\ _
Patriarchy and the State are too faces of the same social form. It should never be surprising when the strengthening of one empowers the other.
There are many women in the American right. However, Democrats would be smart to not just cater to women but to men.
You've fallen for the false dichotomy that you have to pick men or women like their interests are inherently at odds and human rights is a zero sum game.
From https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrats-ponder-manosphere-rcna209806
Democrats know they have a problem with men, particularly the young men who have drifted away from them in recent years. But six months after the gender gap contributed to the party’s disappointing showing in last year’s election, top Democrats are still throwing spaghetti at the wall, lacking a unified theory on how to win these voters back.
I'm not really seeing where the Democratic Party is doing anything to cater to women over men.
Can I find examples of extremely loud activists that are terminally online and that might be saying what I consider rather dumb and unhelpful and counterproductive? Of course. That doesn't mean that is the direction the party is taking.
From https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/democrats-ponder-manosphere-rcna209806
Democrats know they have a problem with men, particularly the young men who have drifted away from them in recent years. But six months after the gender gap contributed to the party’s disappointing showing in last year’s election, top Democrats are still throwing spaghetti at the wall, lacking a unified theory on how to win these voters back.
Only way appeal broadly to both is to not favor subjugating one to the other, but support people in the relationships they want to have.
Not just relationships but the problems each gender faces. Democrats have been too focused on the problems women face probably because they foolishly believed that since there are more women than men, this would enable them to win.
This is utter nonsense. What they have not done is pander to the desire to oppress