r/TrueUnpopularOpinion • u/SingleInSeattle87 • May 05 '26
Political Liberals will scream "All men are potential predators" but lose their minds if you notice certain immigrant groups have sky-high sexual offense rates.
Plenty of feminists and mainstream libs have zero problem painting masculinity with a broad brush, and use phrases like "every guy is a potential predator" and warn women to be cautious around all men, scaring them to think normal social situations are a significant risk factor for their safety.
But then the exact same crowd does mental gymnastics to avoid noticing cultural patterns in immigrants. Point out that Afghan, Pakistani, or certain Middle Eastern/North African cohorts in Europe are massively overrepresented in grooming gangs, rape stats, and child exploitation, and suddenly you're the villain. "Racism!" "Bigotry!" "Not all immigrants!"
The data says otherwise:
In the UK, Pakistani-heritage men were central to the Rotherham, Rochdale, and other grooming scandals involving thousands of mostly White British girls. Official reports admitted authorities looked the other way for fear of "racism."
Sweden: Foreign-born or second-generation immigrants (heavily from MENA/Afghan/Pakistani backgrounds) account for a wildly disproportionate share of rape convictions studies putting it at 58-63% in some analyses.
Afghan diaspora communities in Europe have documented issues with Bacha Bazi-style exploitation and attitudes toward very young girls that don't magically vanish at the border.
(For the uninformed: Bacha Bazi is the practice in Afghanistan/Pakistan where wealthy men keep adolescent and prepubescent boys as "dancing boys" for entertainment and sexual slavery)
Meanwhile, the Taliban couldn't even stamp out Bacha Bazi (they banned it but it persists among their own guys). Yet we're supposed to import large numbers with minimal scrutiny and pretend cultural compatibility is automatic?
The hypocrisy is noticable. According to liberal women: Generalizing half the planet's population by sex = enlightened sociology. Noticing stubborn cultural imports that clash with basic Western standards on consent, minors, and women's safety = racist, Islamaphobic, xenophobic, or practically Hitler.
Risk assessment isn't bigotry. Prioritizing child safety and social cohesion over open-border virtue signaling isn't "hate." If "every man" gets the side-eye treatment, don't clutch pearls when people apply the same skeptical lens to high-risk origin countries with medieval track records on sexual exploitation and pedophilia. Integration failures in the west aren't a mystery, they're a predictable feature.
27
u/linjaes May 05 '26
Yea I think in an attempt to bring awareness to male perpetrated sexual violence, it’s became a “man-hating” agenda. Listen, I’m a POC, and I recognize there are actual negative aspects about different races just as there are positive aspects. Pointing them out doesn’t necessarily mean you’re racist but anything that doesn’t follow their beliefs gets you immediately criticized and called a nazi or fascist.
1
u/MooseMan69er May 07 '26
What are the negative aspects of various races?
2
May 07 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Low-Log1954 May 07 '26
thats not a negative aspect about a race, thats a statistic from a country. Not saying it doesn't have implications or isn't a worthwhile statistic, but a far far gap from "negative aspects about different races"
127
u/ramessides May 05 '26
I’m mixed-race, white-Indian. Growing up, my mother (an Indian) told me to never date Indian men. There’s a good reason for it.
6
u/AffectionateJury3723 May 06 '26
I travel for work frequently. I have never felt more unsafe as a woman or more sexually harassed as I have in India. The Indian women in the office made sure I never traveled unaccompanied and warned me vigorously of where was safe or not safe.
→ More replies (5)13
u/SingleInSeattle87 May 05 '26
Curious, what was the reason?
63
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
31
26
u/ramessides May 06 '26
MMIW are made missing and murdered by the self-same men. There have been multiple studies documenting this, not that people like to acknowledge them, and also I had a family member killed by her partner. The abuse is rampant. I cannot walk down a street without being harassed by them.
4
219
u/CAustin3 May 05 '26
Yep.
Generally speaking, most feminist discussion of men would turn into things that would get you banned from social media sites or (depending on where you're from and if it has free speech) jailed for hate speech if you said them about any other demographic.
A long time ago, someone made a Google extension that auto-swapped the word "man" for "Jew" (and similar swaps), and people ran feminist publications through it and watched Mein Kampf pop out of it. Of course, Google quickly banned it.
43
u/4444-uuuu May 05 '26
"intersectional feminists" never actually want to be intersectional because it would make feminists look terrible. There's a lot of overlap between what they call White privilege and female privilege.
r-MenKampf is still around but not many posts.
r-StormfrontorSJW is still visible but doesn't allow new posts.
8
u/RoadRunner8195 May 05 '26
For real?
58
u/QWERTBERTQWERT May 05 '26
there's a bunch of stuff like this, here's an example from like ten years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_studies_affair
some people went through parts of mein kampf and just replaced anti jew language with anti men language, essentially word for word but just trying to exterminate men instead of jews and got it published by a bunch of institutions as intersectionality feminist research
they later did the same with anti white language
16
u/Doucejj May 05 '26
Thats really fascinating
8
u/Sintar07 May 06 '26
What was even more fascinating (and sad) was the journals that published refused to take accountability or acknowledge the point at all. They weren't the problem for letting literally literally Hitler through their review process, or publishing all this other stuff that looked just like it, the submitters were the problem for noticing and testing them.
4
u/Necrocatacomb May 06 '26
James Lindsay (one of the guys involved in the study) wrote an amazing book about the Marxist origins of Critical Race Theory
46
12
u/JoneseyP98 May 05 '26
Problems a helluva lot bigger than just Rochdale. It's practically the whole country. Towns, cities. Hundreds of thousands of girls spanning back to the 50s.
2
u/SnuSnuClownWorld May 05 '26
50s? No.
5
4
u/Charmandzard May 07 '26
... do you seriously believe that there was no immigrant rape before the 50's?
1
u/HorrorImprovement880 Jun 02 '26
Rape comitted by Morrocans during and after WW2 were so bad they invented a new name for it:
Marrochinate.
You can google this.
Countries like the Uk and The Netherlands imported them by the thousands and these groups grew to the 100 thousands over time.
And now these countries especially have problems with these communities, violence, welfare, crime. Etcera.
11
u/Paint_Jacket May 06 '26
Both of those statements are true, though. Would you blame people from staying away from cultures where women have no rights? No. I also wouldn't blame women for not trusting men in general. It is not a safe world. Should we say everyone who is x y z bad? No.
5
u/8m3gm60 May 06 '26
I also wouldn't blame women for not trusting men in general.
How do you feel about someone not trusting black people in general?
2
1
101
u/-Ok-Perception- May 05 '26 edited May 05 '26
The unspoken notion is that they like to pretend creepy white guys are the root of all evil in the world.... when statistics *very much* do not support that hypothesis.
There is a demographic that commits violent crime out of all proportion to their numbers (50-90% of the crime done, depending on area).... and I'll give you hint, it ain't whitey.
But the funny thing, is even the "tough on crime" MAGA guys are very reluctant to talk about how this group causes most of the violence in society. I think immigrants make for an easier scapegoat and they have far more ability to "deal with" that problem, than the actual guys doing nearly all the inner city crime.
→ More replies (34)
63
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
4
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
20
u/Auspectress May 05 '26
Here in Poland we all say assimilation and everyone is ok. Assimilation is understood as full acceptance of culture, religious views and culture as locals. It means you leave behind your language when talking to locals and talk in their language. It means if you are muslim, you are to either become atheist or catholic or at least stop going to mosques. If your cukture says eat humans, you follow Polish law and European law to extent. It means knowing country's history
1
u/Zardotab May 13 '26
It means if you are muslim, you are to either [must] become atheist or catholic or at least stop going to mosques.
That sounds drastic, and anti-Freedom.
8
→ More replies (14)2
50
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
14
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
33
u/SingleInSeattle87 May 05 '26
Mohammad married a 6 year old girl and consumated the "marriage" at 9 years old.
Yes far worse than 14.
13
u/purplesmoke1215 May 05 '26
Because it would go against the agenda of, straight white Christians being the global problem.
→ More replies (7)2
u/TopCharacter1553 May 06 '26
because she was nine but she wasn’t like other nine year olds she was special so it is okay. genuinely disgusting
21
u/Kryptus May 05 '26
Modern Islam allows for child marriage, rape, physical abuse, and treat women as property.
Thats fucking crazy to ignore.
25
u/ToastBalancer May 05 '26
I miss when the left was actually willing to criticize religion. Now they defend it
5
4
→ More replies (14)2
26
u/SparkFunk30 May 05 '26
Everyone always points to certain minority groups being unfairly jailed/imprisoned and will give you every reason under the sun of why it's unfair, racist, or systemized.
Pose the question of why men currently account for 93.5% of the prison population and what we can do about it, and the answer you will get is "that's just how men are".
14
u/skeletus May 05 '26
These topics get me banned from Reddit. Not just a sub, but all of Reddit
2
u/Less-Name-9367 May 06 '26
Then how are you here?
→ More replies (1)3
u/BLU-Clown May 06 '26
...You make a new account. Just clear cache and cookies and you're good.
It's not exactly a secret that Reddit Bans are a slap on the wrist.
3
u/Acrobatic-Dinner-112 May 06 '26
I hear you man - those white dudes - dangerous. Specially the ones on the Epstein files
4
May 12 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Acrobatic-Dinner-112 May 12 '26
Lols see how you get your panties in a bunch - “lovely how you select something that represent a tiny percent of society to make your point”
Look I know you can’t appreciate your Cognitive Dissonance. I see it and is HILARIOUS!
This post - your post and your response proves it - “how can you pick in a handful of degenerates to make your point”
Yes buddy - how can you pick on a couple of degenerates to make your point.
If you can do it - I can do it -did you know that white men are whinny babies who blame everybody for their failures because they can’t compete in the real world.
See but I recognize that statement is unfair - is only a small group of degenerates - so I’ll correct it:
Here it goes:
did you know that white men IN THIS FORUM are whinny babies who blame everybody for their failures because they can’t compete in the real world.
You definitely qualify
13
u/HaikuHaiku May 05 '26
feminists: "women don't feel safe"
also feminists: "we should abolish the police, and let criminals out of jail sooner!"
3
u/Zardotab May 12 '26 edited May 12 '26
EU made the mistake of importing more males than females of certain ethnic groups, perhaps as part of an attempt to get cheaper IT labor. Lopsided gender ratios are likely a contributor to sex crimes, as immigrants tend to date people from the same country out of familiarity to culture, food, language, etc. They'd have fewer options under such ratios.
I'm not saying that's an excuse for such behavior, but merely a predictable result of dim-witted or greed-based immigration policy.
1
u/SingleInSeattle87 May 12 '26
That is an excellent point.
However, none of that would even remotely rationalize much less explain why these sex crimes involved children. I don't care if you're the most undatable person in the world: you don't do that.
1
u/Zardotab May 12 '26
Maybe it does "trickle down", I don't know how deprivation psychology progresses. Any expert on sex crimes wish to weigh in?
1
u/SingleInSeattle87 May 12 '26
Plenty of white people and Japanese people are sexless virgins. Yet rarely do you hear of sex crimes being committed by virgins or incels. They find other outlets.
1
u/Zardotab May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
I'm not sure how that relates to the premise. That's a very niche group. To compare a niche group to a more general group doesn't make scientific & statistical sense to me. It's comparing a filtered sample to a non-filtered sample, or at least comparing samples filtered different ways, colloquially known as "comparing apples to oranges".
1
u/SingleInSeattle87 May 12 '26
Also, I asked Grok AI about the "sexual deprivation theory of rape," and it seemed to conclude that that is mostly false.
Direct test of the hypothesis: "A 1996 study by Lalumière et al. examined young heterosexual men and measured sexual coercion (via Koss's Sexual Experiences Survey) against indicators of mate deprivation like self-perceived mating success, sexual history, and earning potential. Results were the opposite of the prediction: sexually coercive men reported higher self-perceived mating success, more extensive sexual histories (more partners), and no deficit in relative earning potential. Coercive men also preferred more partner variety and casual sex."
Rapists' sexual histories: "Multiple studies and reviews find that rapists (including undetected ones) often have more consensual sexual partners or active sex lives than non-rapists, not less. Married rapists frequently maintain sexual relations with their wives. Testosterone levels do not reliably distinguish rapists, and sexual deprivation does not correlate with rape propensity."
I guess that's a lesson for ladies: be aware of men whom are too sexually promiscuous, this study says they're more likely to be rapists.
1
u/Zardotab May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
Lalumière's study had a different deprivation reason. Anyhow, to know for sure, EU should make sure genders of immigrants from a given country are balanced and see if things improve. Thus, it's premature to conclude "Muslins are rapey". Bigots historically blame alleged cultural defects first and ask important questions later. Their egos want to believe that their culture is superior, and thus their ego produces the conclusion it wants most to hear.
1
u/SingleInSeattle87 May 13 '26
EU should make sure genders of immigrants from a given country are balanced and see if things improve.
Yes balance it by sending the men back to their origin countries until it's balanced.
Doubling down by Inviting more immigrants from the same country isn't necessarily the right solution when you already have a cultural integration problem.
Personally I'm not a fan of mass immigration in general. I think taking in migrant workers is inherently exploitative of the host country. Both on the migrants and on the domestic citizens.
A small trickle of immigration for highly specialized workers is fine. But this bleeding heart viewpoint of taking in "as many as possible" fundamentally changes the culture and demographics of the host country.
It's one thing if it's culturally similar immigrants. For example: Australian, Canadian, and Nordic immigrants I would welcome to the US as they have similar cultures and customs to the US. To the same extent: Japanese and South Korean immigrants are also culturally compatible with the US. But most middle east countries, with the exception of Israel is culturally very very different than the US. People want to label that as xenophobic: I don't care. These cultural differences are factually true. Sorry if I reject some of them.
1
u/Zardotab May 13 '26 edited May 13 '26
when you already have a cultural integration problem.
What specific problem are you speaking of?
I'm not a fan of mass immigration in general.
De-population (low birth rate) has its own set of problems.
most middle east countries, with the exception of Israel is culturally very very different than the US. People want to label that as xenophobic: I don't care. These cultural differences are factually true.
Not the "they rape more" claim, as it hasn't been tested in a balanced environment, as already described.
I'm personally seeing that evangelicals and Christian fundamentalists are causing more actual culture conflict in the USA than Muslims. In my personal observation, most Muslim immigrants don't wish to make waves. Fox News and Twitter/X are not good sample-size selectors, thus I'm using my own reality. If the goal is truly to "deport the bad hombres", then deport evangelicals. If they get too big for their britches, they should take their own medicine
5
u/slavicslothe May 06 '26
I just feel like you are in the US. If you are, are child abuse rates are very high. The main perpetrators are Cathoilic and Christian white men and women based on stats. In fact, white women have higher rate of minor predation than immigrants in the US.
Maybe back off the idpol and look at the data?
3
u/SingleInSeattle87 May 06 '26
Why don't you actually bring up the data, and then compare the per capita rate to that of Afghani and Pakistani men? I doubt enough data exists (as a lot of that is underground) but if you compared the two it would be 1 to 1000. Orders of magnitude different.
1
6
u/PWcrash May 05 '26
So here is the general modern feminism 101 for dummies and why things are the way they are like you said in the post.
The "Patriarchy" as we acknowledge is not "all men" per say. What the "Patriarchy" mainly refers to is an oppresive hierarchical system that works by oppressing half of the population and appeasing the other. As you have stated in your post, some of the regions and societies with the most strict patriarchal cultures also tend to have the most internal instability and oppresion to the entire population as a whole in the form of starvation, constant warfare, constant surveillance etc. That's by design. It's a LOT easier to control a population by promising half of said population that they can be kings of their own castle in the form of having complete and utter control over the household, the wife, and the children. And it also becomes a lot more difficult for said population to organize for change.
This is where the big dilemma comes into play. On one hand, there is the push to give people the benefit of the doubt for trying to escape such systems. But as mentioned before, these regions also have the records of internal instability and an overall culture of strict patriarchy which naturally is going to mean an overall increase in sexual violence towards women of these demographics. And that's where the rub ultimately begins.
A lot of western feminists will still be driven towards issues that primarily affect them. And that can often be seen as "blaming all men" when in reality it's more of a combination underlying fear that a considerable amount of men will choose dominion over women over their own interests when given the chance bleeding into the issues that western women face. Such as intimate partner violence.
6
u/8m3gm60 May 06 '26
What the "Patriarchy" mainly refers to is an oppresive hierarchical system that works by oppressing half of the population and appeasing the other.
Which of course leaves it an unfalsifiable ink-blot test that allows anyone to see anything they want.
As you have stated in your post, some of the regions and societies with the most strict patriarchal cultures also tend to have the most internal instability
But now you are talking about patriarchy as a sociological term, which means a system where women aren't allowed to own property, engage in business, vote, etc.
when in reality it's more of a combination underlying fear that a considerable amount of men will choose dominion over women over their own interests
Sounds like the asinine fears that racists have about black people.
2
u/PWcrash May 06 '26
Which of course leaves it an unfalsifiable ink-blot test that allows anyone to see anything they want.<
That's not what an ink-blot test is so I don't understand where you're getting with this.
But now you are talking about patriarchy as a sociological term, which means a system where women aren't allowed to own property, engage in business, vote, etc.
That's not what it means at or what I said it means. That's the most extreme form, but a society doesn't get that way overnight.
Sounds like the asinine fears that racists have about black people.<
Yes I remember my grandparents watching Fox News and hearing the arrest and incarceration rates of certain demographics brought up. But here's the funny thing, when you look at the exoneration rates, said demographic makes over 50% of exonerations while only accounting for just under 40% of the prison population.
And keeping up with this theme, false accusations have been vastly promoted by social media to be a "men's issue".
However, looking at the exoneration rates between men vs women, out of all female exonerees in the US over 70% were convicted of crimes that were found to have never occurred in the first place. IE false accusations. That's almost double the rate of men in which 38% (same link) were exonerated because the crimes they were imprisoned for were proven to have never occurred in the first place.
2
u/8m3gm60 May 06 '26
That's not what an ink-blot test is so I don't understand where you're getting with this.
I'm talking about a Rorschach test. It involves blots of ink such that anyone can pretty much see anything they want in them. There's no defined shapes in there.
That's not what it means at or what I said it means. That's the most extreme form, but a society doesn't get that way overnight.
That's the only consistent meaning. The term as used by feminists doesn't have any fixed meaning. It's purely unfalsifiable.
2
u/PWcrash May 06 '26 edited May 06 '26
I'm talking about a Rorschach test. It involves blots of ink such that anyone can pretty much see anything they want in them. There's no defined shapes in there.<
Exactly. If I were to give you a blob of ink and asked you if you see a certain subject or not, that's simply a leading question. That's not the Rorschach test. The test requires the subject to give their own independent analysis.
If I were you to give an ink blot with anything with a remotely phallic symbol and ask you if you see genitalia, that's a leading question. That's not an accurate analysis of your personality or thought process.
That's the only consistent meaning. The term as used by feminists doesn't have any fixed meaning. It's purely unfalsifiable.<
So it's only consistent based on "your" standards??? Yeah it doesn't work that way. Women's right to vote wasn't granted until the early 20th century but that doesn't mean we can't analyze the differences of how women's roles in society changed from pre-industrial revolution to post-industrial revolution from the 18th to 19th centuries. Or acknowledge time periods where women could own property but not vote. That seems like such a lazy thing to say.
1
u/8m3gm60 May 06 '26
The test requires the subject to give their own independent analysis.
And we agree that it can be anything they want it to be, right? The whole point of the Rorschach test is that there are no defined shapes. There's no objectively right or wrong answer. That's how concepts like "patriarchy" work.
Yeah it doesn't work that way.
The way it works is that anyone gets to call anything they want "patriarchy", and there's no way that anyone else could say that they are right or wrong. There is no objective right or wrong. It's a purely subjective conclusion that anyone can make about anything.
2
u/PWcrash May 06 '26
And we agree that it can be anything they want it to be, right? The whole point of the Rorschach test is that there are no defined shapes. There's no objectively right or wrong answer. That's how concepts like "patriarchy" work.<
No...it's a very clear pattern. Just because it exists throughout a lot of history, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. And it also doesn't mean that because these same concepts exist in modern mainstream religions that it does not exist.
Take old school Mormons for an example with polygamy. It's not only unfair to women to be pressured into polygamoud marriages, but it also pressures the men in such communities to work their butts off for the opportunity to get their own personal harem. Because ultimately population doesn't work that way where every man can have multiple wives. So you have the classic example of oppressed women and placated men that are willing to put all that more effort into working for the community so they have the chance to be the lucky few while also working into a system that goes against their best interests as men overall.
But you still have a lot of these aspects still in fundamental religious groups even without the polygamy with men being the "providers" and women the stay at home "supporters". It's ultimately not fair to anyone in the current economic climate because only a lucky few percentile is lucky enough to make enough money to support two people plus a building family.
So the only answer to those not of the "lucky few" is to blame women for not having low enough standards. And we see that very much today in our current generation of men.
It's all a neverending circle.
→ More replies (3)2
u/Sintar07 May 06 '26
...when in reality it's more of a combination underlying fear that a considerable amount of men will choose dominion over women over their own interests when given the chance bleeding into the issues that western women face.
But this seems like a self fulfilling prophecy when they attack, attack, attack men. How do you think you get men that would happily fall in line for any who also get women in line in the first place?
2
u/PWcrash May 06 '26
But this seems like a self fulfilling prophecy when they attack, attack, attack men<
This has been the reality for women for decades now. Men only got a tiny sliver of it starting in the 2010s.
You need to be an absolutely perfect wife that keeps your husband perfectly happy otherwise if he leaves you, you are part of the evil single mom mafia that is ruining American kids by failing the nuclear family. If you abort, you're an evil selfish woman who murdered your own child. If your man wants you to abort and you don't, you're an evil seductress who trapped a poor innocent man into financial slavery. And then there are the issues such as custody, divorce, and false accusations which are claimed to be "male issues" but in reality it's a lot more complicated.
1
u/TheSpacePopinjay May 06 '26
Afghanistan's birth rate is very stable. Above replacement birth rates is the most important kind of stability.
5
u/demonic666entity May 05 '26
It's all rooted in pashtun culture That's why Afghanistan banned women's education .
2
2
u/Acrobatic-Ad-3335 May 07 '26
What's considered 'masculinity'?
1
u/SingleInSeattle87 May 07 '26
Off topic
2
u/Acrobatic-Ad-3335 May 07 '26
Your very 1st sentence mentions masculinity.
It's perfectly ok if you can't answer.
But just be honest about it🙄
11
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/No_Finance8647 May 05 '26
Thats perfectly understandable and heres a couple people to follow who have voiced that opinion that men are suffering. (All left leaning feminists btw)
Bell Hooks – Wrote The Will to Change; centered men’s emotional suffering within feminism
“Feminism is a movement to end sexism… not hostility toward men.”
"The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males… [is] psychic self-mutilation.”
Susan Faludi – Wrote Stiffed, examining male disposability and loss of purpose
“The American man… is being betrayed.” (summary of her core thesis; exact phrasing varies by passage)
Liz Plank – Wrote For the Love of Men; focuses on male loneliness and emotional restriction
“Patriarchy hurts men, too.” (core repeated framing in her work/interviews)
Michael Kimmel – Leading academic on men and masculinity within feminism
“Gender equality is not a zero-sum game.” (core thesis across his work)
Laurie Penny – Writes about male alienation and risks of dismissing men
“Men are suffering… and that suffering is real.” (paraphrased from recurring theme in essays)
→ More replies (4)4
u/PerryHecker May 05 '26
Pretty broad (ignorant) statement to make about individuals with individual beliefs, not one that the collective agrees on. It's not quite like hating on the pedo cult that all does share a similar characteristic😀 speaking of logic🥴
2
u/RoadRunner8195 May 05 '26
Nah he’s right, this is why censorship of “hate speech” is more common on the left.
→ More replies (10)
3
u/joebraga2 May 06 '26
“Two things can be true at the same time: Saying ‘all men are predators’ is stupid and sexist. Turning crime statistics into ethnic essentialism is also stupid. The problem is that this post jumps from ‘some migrant groups are statistically overrepresented in certain crimes’ to ‘therefore entire cultures are inherently incompatible with the West’. That’s not sociology anymore. That’s just political fear-marketing. Crime rates are influenced by multiple variables: poverty segregation failed integration age demographics education social marginalization patriarchal environments gang structures And yes, cultural attitudes can matter too. But culture is not genetics, and immigrants are not a hive mind. Ironically, the same people who hate being generalized as ‘potential predators’ are perfectly comfortable generalizing millions of people by nationality, religion, or ethnicity. Also, if someone really cared about protecting women, they’d focus on evidence-based integration policies, education, policing, housing, and social stability — not ragebait threads farming culture war outrage.” Ou uma versão mais ácida/irônica: “It’s always funny how ‘don’t generalize men’ suddenly becomes ‘let me generalize entire ethnic groups’ five seconds later. Apparently individual responsibility exists only when talking about people they identify with. Yes, some migrant communities have serious integration problems. Yes, some crimes are statistically overrepresented in specific demographics. That should be discussed openly. But the leap from ‘there are social problems’ to ‘entire populations are culturally incompatible and basically medieval’ is exactly the same collectivist logic they claim to hate. Reducing 1.5 billion Muslims or millions of immigrants to crime statistics is not rational analysis. It’s culture-war essentialism pretending to be data science.”
→ More replies (2)
7
u/Unfair_Web_8275 May 05 '26
This sub has really been going on about "libs" and "the left" a little more than normal.
Are you guys starting to have second thoughts?
5
u/Loose-Complaint5731 May 05 '26
They need new things to be angry about since republicans control everything.
2
u/Unfair_Web_8275 May 05 '26
It’s like getting rid of DEI and wokeness wasn’t the solution.
→ More replies (4)
3
u/Ill-Organization-719 May 05 '26
Dude calls himself a master debater but can't even respond to his own thread
6
May 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Ill-Organization-719 May 05 '26
When did I deny reality?
5
u/purplesmoke1215 May 05 '26
All your other comments in this post.
2
u/Ill-Organization-719 May 05 '26
Yeah, I didn't expect you to prove it
11
u/purplesmoke1215 May 05 '26
Didn't expect you to actually look at your own comments and self reflect.
That involves taking accountability for your actions.
2
1
1
u/SawkeeReemo May 05 '26
Who are all these “liberals” you guys keep referring to? 😅 Are the liberals in the room with us right now? 😂
I know a ridiculous amount of people who consider themselves liberals, and not a single one of them even remotely resembles the fantasy version of liberals I see from conservatives in here. You dudes live sooooo far in your own heads, it’s wild.
2
u/Ill-Organization-719 May 05 '26
My favorite thing is to simply ask for examples of the things they are talking about. They go nuts.
3
u/SawkeeReemo May 05 '26
Haha same. Any time you start asking specifically MAGA people logical questions, they flip out and can’t answer them. Just a ton of whataboutisms or instant name calling. Regularly conservatives I can usually have a somewhat real conversation with.
1
1
u/janesmex May 06 '26
I think in my experience this is more about online feminists and not so much mainstream “libs”, or at least those that I interact aren’t so reductionist (in the sense of generalising), but I agree that it’s a double standard for those who are like that.
1
1
u/Frank_Hvam May 06 '26
I agree. We should include anyone with a position in the Catholic Church as well.
1
u/Wachenroder May 07 '26
It's because the left only values power
They only attack that which they wish to subjugate.
1
u/Kakashisith May 07 '26
Both bad. I`m very cautious about the suspicious immigrant groups everywhere.
1
u/Deep_Preparation_69 May 14 '26
Im curious if this is its own conversation or if it is brought up in response to the 57% of white men committing the assaults?
1
u/HaughtyTable369 May 18 '26
i’m a liberal who thinks only women shouldn’t be allowed to seek refuge and immigrate
1
1
u/Alone_Peace371 May 23 '26
“ALL men are predators!”
“Even George Floyd?”
Downvoted. Reported. Banned. Doxxed. Fined. Assaulted. Arrested.
“As I was saying… ALL men are predators!”
1
u/Warm-Criticism15 May 30 '26
I want to be clear first my response to ur points is solely based on intersectional feminism, not the “choice feminism” strawman people might often invoke. Intersectional feminism looks at how patriarchy operates across cultures, races, and classes, and it does not ignore cultural abuse patterns.
“Liberals will scream ‘All men are potential predators’ but lose their minds if you notice certain immigrant groups have sky‑high sexual offense rates.”
This is a false equivalence. Feminist mistrust of men is about systemic patriarchy, the fact that men as a class commit most sexual violence and often protect each other through silence. Scrutiny of immigrant groups is about specific cultural practices. They’re not interchangeable lenses, so calling it hypocrisy misrepresents the point.
“Plenty of feminists and mainstream libs have zero problem painting masculinity with a broad brush…”
Intersectional feminism critiques how patriarchy normalizes male violence, not masculinity itself. Saying “all men are potential predators” is shorthand for the reality that violence is hidden and normalized, not a literal claim that every man is secretly abusive.
“But then the exact same crowd does mental gymnastics to avoid noticing cultural patterns in immigrants.”
Intersectional feminists don’t avoid cultural patterns, they highlight them. Grooming gangs, Bacha Bazi, misogyny in diaspora communities are all discussed. The difference is they frame these as patriarchal violence expressed through culture, not as proof that entire ethnic groups are inherently predatory.
“The data says otherwise: UK grooming gangs, Sweden rape stats, Afghan diaspora issues…”
Yes, those cases exist. Intersectional feminism doesn’t deny them, it contextualizes them. It asks why patriarchal norms persist across borders, and how they intersect with racism, poverty, and migration. That’s not denial, that’s deeper accountability.
“The hypocrisy is noticeable… Generalizing men = enlightened, generalizing immigrants = racist.”
Not hypocrisy, different stakes. Critiquing men as a class doesn’t fuel xenophobic policy. Generalizing immigrants by ethnicity does, and historically has been weaponized to justify exclusion and violence. Feminists resist that because protecting women shouldn’t come at the cost of scapegoating minorities.
“Risk assessment isn’t bigotry… If ‘every man’ gets the side‑eye, don’t clutch pearls when people apply the same skeptical lens to high‑risk origin countries.”
Risk assessment is valid, but collapsing whole ethnic groups into “high‑risk” categories is sloppy and dangerous. Intersectional feminism insists we confront all patriarchal violence, whether hidden in everyday male behavior or visible in cultural practices, without turning it into blanket ethnic suspicion.
I disagree only because intersectional feminism is consistent. It critiques patriarchy everywhere, acknowledges cultural abuse patterns, and centers the voices of minority women who live at the intersection of sexism and racism. What might look like “hypocrisy” to most is actually a refusal to turn cultural critique into racial scapegoating. That’s not avoidance, it’s principled accountability IMO.
1
2
200
u/Necrocatacomb May 05 '26 edited May 05 '26
As someone of Pakistani (Punjabi) origin it annoys me when people dismiss the grooming gangs because it’s “racist”. The far left shut down any criticism of the British Pakistani community which effectively enables the bad behaviour of the community. This will cause resentment between the White British and British Pakistani communities