Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Whoever the fuck actually thinks that having a daughter helps a man solve his abusive behaviour? Grade A dumbassery, he just gets another punchbag ffs.
Yeah exactly. Which is literally what the post is saying towards women who have a fantasy that having a kid will solve a problem. Posted here somehow as rage bait as if there was a claim that all men are like this which I don’t think was the intention at all.
Sometimes they hit the mom and not the kid.
One of my good friends' ex was abusive, but stopped being violent when she was pregnant... Like it's nice of him to know not to hit pregnant women, but also it's kind of proving he's making the deliberate choice of hitting her when she's not
Yep sometimes a kid is the kick in the pants for someone to positive change
But that’s a drastic risk for it actually working….because if not you have a kid that essentially has at minimum one terrible parent
It should also be noted that women are just as capable of being the irresponsible loser
It's a huge risk indeed, because it rarely works that way.
Raising a child is an incredibly challenging experience, even in the case of the parents being well adjusted and stable.
Fuckups and trainwrecks adding a kid to their mix is even more of a challenge. And almost without fail, the fuckups don't realize (or completely ignore) the lasting effects of the steep learning curve until they got their shit together, on their kid(s), in order to claim success.
But it is very common for people to focus on the exception when trying to justify the norm.
One of the main reasons why a lot of therapist offices have long waiting list is that there is a huge number of kids, of parents who were fuckup losers, having to deal with the effects of what a fuck up thinks "mature and responsible parenting" looks like.
It’s not magic, it doesn’t make them immune to disgusting behaviours.
“How could *he* be a rapist? *He has a daughter*!” is the rapist equivalent of “I can’t be racist, some of *my friends* are black!”.
Yeah, didn’t Israel Keys have a wife and a kid, and yet he was still a serial killer.
People can be monsters and still seem like normal people on the outside, in fact I’d argue that’s how most serial killers got away with it.
I feel like you completely misinterpreted OOP's intentions. The point isn't that all men are innately abusive. It's that in men that ARE, it's innate and can't be solved by just giving that person a daughter.
Ya, I was going to point out that same misinterpretation. That said, I still think that OOP's argument isn't well-founded; misogyny and cruelty are largely *learned*, albeit often tacitly as a result of social and cultural conditioning over years / decades. I agree that having kids won't magically change all that, but I would push back against the notion that those views, traits, and behaviors are impossible to change. Hard, in many cases, and success requires buy-in and effort over time and is by no means guaranteed, but a worthwhile goal for men that find themselves holding toxic views.
I certainly agree that "an asshole is just gonna be an asshole" is a bit too easy of an answer. Perhaps there is a limit to how much can be done but "they're JUST an asshole" implies that NOTHING can be done.
Diddy was a career criminal who was involved with actual gang members who were known for their profound violence. Literally started out as a drug dealer, so I really don’t think you can rehabilitate people who make a literal lifestyle out of crime
That’s still not even what OP in the screenshot was saying though. They’re just saying that having daughters doesn’t mean men will suddenly start seeing women as people. This isn’t unique to drug dealers or anyone else you deem morally reprehensible. It’s just misogyny, it’s not a conscious thing men do. But it is the inability to empathize with anyone you don’t relate to, so you see when these men have daughters, they suddenly don’t want them doing x, y, z because they KNOW how men are… bc they are men.
The us prison system doesn’t even pretend to be about rehabilitation, it is just meant for revenge and profit. That said up in Canada last week national news broke when a gang member deliberately executed a 12 year old child in broad daylight in a busy a&w because their parent was involved somehow with a gang. I would argue that an individual capable of such barbaric violence is more similar to Heinrich Himmler than a mentally healthy adult and is in fact categorically impossible to rehabilitate and their mere existence presents a mortal threat to any and every single life within handgun range of them.
I don't really see what telling me about the fucked up shit someone did adds to the conversation.
Just being a career criminal still doesn't mean the person categorically cannot be rehabilitated. And regarding whether or not the person you mentioned can be, I don't know. And neither do you, which is why the assessment by multiple mental health professionals would be necessary to determine that, not the opinions of random people on the internet.
Sure you can. Like many things, it’s a learned behavior, and if it can be learned then it can be unlearned. Sometimes that means making huge changes in who you surround yourself with and doing the opposite of what you would normally do in situations throughout the day but it’s possible for people who engrossed in a life style of crime or drugs to unlearn and become a different person. I’ve seen it happen first hand.
But this is about something totally different
They can choose to rehabilitate, but it usually requires prison and/or an epiphany.
He fell into making money with music. I would think it amplified his faults when no one has been honest with him or they're violent and getting paid to be muscle.
Nuance is important. Sometimes it's annoying to have to include but it's essential to generational change and social progress.
I think you're 100% correct. There are many reasons people do these things that overlap and changing the context, environment, influences has helped people be better and change. It may be very difficult but as long as you want to change it's a possibility.
But they have to *want to*
I feel like *especially* with people with money, power, status and very public image it's an entirely different kind of solution because frankly it's a machine printing money with sycophants and yes men that will surely allow things to continue behind the scenes and enable.
It's easy to read it both ways. I mean, grammatically, it clearly states that men are abusive and that abusive nature is innate. It strongly insinuates all men.
However, i think it is also easy enough to understand that they probably didn't mean all men are abusive, but that the abusive men are innately abusive.
Of course, that begs a whole other debate of whether or not abusive behavior is innate. That insinuates a genetic component that leads to abusive behavior. Maybe that exists, but I would be willing to bet that abusive behavior is learned and therefore not innate. And if a behavior is learned, it can be unlearned. People can rehabilitate.
I would personally say that debating whether we are all or not would be beside the point anyway .
The point isn't how many men are abusers, the point is that a woman isn't going to magically enter an abusive man's life and fix/redeem them. In this specific case, by way of being their child.
Pretty much
If they are saying it’s innate and can’t be changed that means genetic which directly leads to insinuating that it could be all men that suffer from it making people interpreting it that way as valid
The thing is that enough people keep saying “all men” for issues that it’s become harder and harder to say that they don’t mean it as all men, it’s like trying to take most conservatives seriously because theirs been so many that are insane that you must think the entire lot are on the same page
Adding on to that, this seems like a person who tweeted out something expecting only their friends to see it. If it was a blue checkmark (especially from back in the day a blue check meant something) or someone I immediately recognized, I might be more or less judgmental. But it seems to be a rando.
It seems the internet never learned anything from Justine Sacco.
OP just wanted to have their feelings hurt and be offended. They got it what they were looking for.
I think somebody would need to be LOOKING for an excuse to have a bitch fit to read this the way OP's triggered, touchy ass seemingly did.
‘A post about men literally beating and raping women? Hmmm but how does this hurt my feelings as a man? That’s clearly the more important topic here!’
Every
Fucking
Time
Their precious FEELINGS!
When women talk about facts we’re emotional, when men’s feelings get hurt, facts go out the window but they’re totes the ‘logical’ ones
Screaming, violence and anger is clearly not as emotional as crying to yourself, don’t ya know /s
I’m clearly in the right because I can express my dogshit opinions with a flat tone and straight face which makes you look ridiculously hysterical while defending a topic you’re passionate about (like your basic human rights)
As a dude, so many dudes are so fragile about this stuff it's hilarious. It always has to be about them. And generally these dudes are not out in their community working to address real issues that men face, they just bring it up when they have an opportunity to shut down a woman talking about issues women face
Eh, maybe.
It’s possible that OOP meant just what you said, but it’s also just as possible that OOP meant “men are innately abusive and demonic.” I don’t know anything about her, and I suspect we’ve all seen numerous examples of women who genuinely *do* think all men are depraved assholes. It’s not exactly some fringe opinion that no one dares to say aloud.
What bugs me is that it is **just so easy** to add a clarifying word in there. No matter what group/subgroup you are talking about. Men, women, Jews, whites, Russians, whatever. It’s fucking lazy to fart out something that sounds very much like you’re talking about *all* men, women, Jews, etc, etc. I’m tired of giving people a “They probably meant ___” pass. If you made a generalization, you should get treated like you made a generalization.
Is it the end of the world if someone on Twitter makes a generalization about a group of people? No, absolutely not. But by the same token, it’s also not the end of the world if they get shit for not choosing their words better. Some things in life are really difficult. Saying “some” to improve the quality of your communication is not one of those really difficult things.
I think you’ve nailed it. I believe the identity politics of a situation affects whether someone interprets something as hateful or misinterpreted. There’s an unconscious bias. And many in their replies have used it to make misandrist comments, that go unchallenged, often upvoted.
I won’t deny that man babies are a loud group on the internet. I moderate a mental health group and incels wash up frequently. However if I mention the suicide rate is 4:1 for men against women, there’s often a femcel replying with how men murder many women, or questioning how many do it due to shame at things they’ve done. Whataboutism is rife everywhere. And unfortunately it is often a femcel view that men are innately evil or at least heavily predisposed to it. And Twitter being the platform OOP uses just boosts my skepticism about their intent, it’s lazy… Too lazy?
There are hundreds of posts like this talking like if every man is a potential rapist or some kind of natural monster. And when someone uses men instead of man and not using any language that, even for a litte bit, points for what you've said was the real intentions, it's pretty clear that she was talking about what she thinks about all men. It is really obvious too... it seams to me that both you and other comments are forcing an interpretation to protect this kind of speech.
I think you misinterpreted. It’s not saying all men have that innate behavior. It’s saying those who do won’t be magically fixed by having a daughter.
At least that’s what I hope it says.
This is the problem with the choice of language used. This is what locks in the "Not all men!" response that women hate hearing.
Because they *mean* "the type of men that do this behavior," but the language they used was "men do this." It technically can be stretched to mean the former, but they did actually say "all men" even if their mind was intending "selective men."
They could have and should have said "some men do this," but choose to say "men do this." Then get upset when people rightfully point out how they just used a blanket statement that is extremely disingenuous and insulting.
When the card is flipped and the same language is used to describe negative traits that some women some employ, the exact same response is given: "Women are not a monolith," or any other variation of being upset that we unfairly painted all women negatively when only a select few do that.
When using terminology that has two meanings and further one of them is the primary application, why not use the slightly more accurate terminology that better express your views? Your poor choice of language is your fault, not theirs for concluding you had different intentions
.
Language matters.
She *did* actually say all men are naturally predators and pedophiles, even if she secretly meant otherwise.
"Men" can refer to some men or all men depending on context. Ambiguous context is a type of dog whistle for misandry. Ambiguous context of similar phrases involving women / people of colour is a type of dog whistle for misogny / racism.
Yeah, that kind of talk is often use by racist, misoginistic and misandry. The latter one that is misandry can get easily mix up if you don't specify not all are like that...because misandry actually exist and they express themselves like that, "Mans are evil and (keep inserting misandry bullshit)".
So yeah is a poor choice of words. Like if you don't want to feed racism, misandry and misoginistic on the internet, please specify by using a word like "some..".
The full context of her tweet is that it is a reply. The topic is already decidedly about abusive men. You shouldn't have to restate that every time to contine a conversation. It'd be really time-consuming, and we'd get nowhere if we couldn't continue talking about something, knowing it's within the context of how we started.
"Where's Susan?"
"Susan went to the store to get bread."
"Did you tell her to grab milk as well?"
"Tell who?"
"Susan!"
"Well, why didn't you say so! Yes, I told Susan to grab the milk as well"
That does not apply at all. A proper name cannot also be used in exchange for the entire group. Even just the name Susan is in itself a very unique specification. Which is the larger point. Because following your own example, the more appropriate thing would be to not even say that. They should have just said predator.
Your own example emphasizes the problem. She should have said Susan, instead she said women. Which does not make sense when she means just Susan.
Why did she say women when she really means just susan?
Not a good example. Talking about Susan, then goin for "women" would be the same.
\-Susan forgot to buy milk.
\-Women really forgot what they want to buy.
Everyone would see it as a problem. But making it about Mark and men, you somehow justify the error.
The problem is that there is a large amount of reactionary misandry going on mostly online but in the real world too. Women have voices and they are valid but they are people too and any one person is as vulnerable to echo chamber and group think as the next.
I think that women physically as a group are equally capable and equally express certain kinds of selfish behaviors and prejudices that manifest differently.
We're all human.
Also considering just how many female teachers are in the news routinely doing bad things...
I just think it's silly to think either gender is less capable or inclined to be selfish and cruel, our brains are nearly exactly the same outside minor hormonal differences that don't affect executive thinking so greatly.
>Also considering just how many female teachers are in the news routinely doing bad things...
>I just think it's silly to think either gender is less capable or inclined to be selfish and cruel,
True, women are just as capable, but just as inclined, statistics say otherwise.
"Specifically, 11 percent reported sexual comments, 0.6 percent reported that they were shown or given sexual pictures or photos or were sent sexual messages, 0.9 percent reported having been touched in a sexual manner, and 0.4 percent reported other sexual activity, including sexual intercourse or oral sex.
Similar to past research, we found that:
Most perpetrators were teachers (63.4 percent) or coaches/gym teachers (19.7 percent).
*[Most perpetrators were male (89.1 percent).](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/protecting-children-from-sexual-abuse/202305/educator-sexual-misconduct-remains-prevalent-in)*
The majority of those who experienced educator sexual misconduct were female (72 percent), and in high school at the time, they experienced sexual misconduct."
The fact that men make up a much smaller percentage of teachers (20%), yet, are the majority of perpetrators by a staggering percentage tells us that female teachers are much less inclined.
The same is true for women in regards almost all crimes, and all violent crimes. Men are much more inclined to commit violent crimes than women. Example, 9 out of 10 murders are committed by men.
Does that mean that all men are violent? Of course not. The majority aren't. But men are much more inclined to be than women.
I think all they’re trying to say is:
A man having a daughter does not automatically make them not sexist, or even not abusive.
In fact, a lot of abusers are great at rationalising their actions when it’s in their own interest.
Plus, the statement being made here sounds like coming from a place of hurt—or just being so sick and angry at how utterly common an occurrence this seems to be for girls and women in general.
Not triggering enough to the incels, I'm afraid. OP saw a woman saying something negative about ~~rapists~~ men and just decided to take that personally.
Something on your mind, OP?
I always wonder why people choose to make themselves the subject when others are talking about a specific, violent group of people.
Makes them seem like they are actually part of that demographic. Why would you see the need to say stuff like "nOt AlL mEn" aloud?
It's obviously not all men, but in this case I felt it was clear. And when women talk about dangerous men and just say "men" it's just a reminder that they don't actually know which ones are the dangerous ones. You can't tell until it's too late.
Women are so guilty of making blanket statements. Women want to divorce you and take all your money. See how dumb this sounds? Just add "some" motherfucker, it's not hard, its your fault for not using proper language
If someone said " extremism is innate in Muslims", no one would be saying "if you read between the lines they didn't mean all Muslims".
Y'all really just have random standards and morals.
Tbh on this specific sub I recall seeing frequent posts where the OP posts screenshot out of context and/or is desperate to dig up some most offensive meaning when it was not the point. Or the OP got sad that the OOP did _not_ list all possible exceptions for their advice/opinion/study in a single tweet.
It’s pretty obvious that the OOP is arguing that having kids doesn’t make evil go away and that those who rape are born with this evil that doesn’t go away. It is not arguing that all men are evil. Not a facepalm
Ok, let's break this down. Reddit comments think OP is just an incel. OP thinks OOP is a misandrist.
Context: the story that OOP is reacting to is someone being incredulous that a rapist has daughters.
Simplified, OOP says that having daughters doesn't make men stop doing evil things. Its innate.
OP's reading of "men doing evil things is innate to men" is an accurate reading of the response even in context. Using the pronoun game, it refers to "abusive, demonic behavior". It is innate to whom/what? The only group of people outlined in the tweet is men.
The other reading of "men that are abusive don't stop being abusive when they have daughters. It's an innate trait of those men" is also a valid reading. This reading is a bit charitable and would be closer to a steelman of the position.
Ultimately, this tweet is not clear as to its intent, which makes the incel comments a bit wild. This is definitely the kind of tweet that 90% of people would just roll their eyes at and keep scrolling.
This post is definitely getting shut down, I've been seeing allot of rational and nuanced opinions in this thread, which is nice to see this side of reddit.
The harsh truth is having female loved ones have never stopped abusers and rapists from doing what they do. In fact, it's often emboldened then as the existence of their female loved ones acts as a moral justification. Usually revolving around some distorted and depraved sense of honor as a man.
This dates back to when soldiers would plunder a village and enslave the "enemy women" with the backing of their daughters, sisters, and wives. You can see it in Ukraine now with Russian women encouraging the Russian men to abuse Ukrainian women.
Doing those things is insane whether the person has his own daughters or not. Like, I don't have daughters and I find it horrifying regardless of circumstances. Everyone should.
I don’t think that’s what it’s saying. I think it’s saying that if a man is shitty and is doing those things, having a daughter isn’t going to make them not act that way.
If men didn’t believe that other men are inherently dangerous we wouldn’t have the cultural
cliche of dad’s joking about greeting their daughter’s boyfriends with a shotgun
Exactly - I saw a brilliant clip where this girl said something to the lines of "when these sexist men become father's, they'll suddenly have to protect their daughters against all of the sexism that they claimed didn't exist" and oof, on point.
I never understand people that read these types of comments and go NOT ALL- OFC it’s never all fucking [insert whatever you want here] were all so fk different how can this % of ALL THE FK HUMANS ON EARTH BE “BAD”
When I turned 18 I had a really nasty experience with my Car theory teacher, I forgot my exam login on a piece of paper at home and asked the man if he perhaps had an option for me not to fail my theory exam. Mind you I knew this man for 3 days (3 classes). Each day he’d show us(the class) pictures of his children.. his pregnant wife.. how happy he is and how much he loves them. So we as a class also rlly liked the man for his enthusiasm and stuff. So when I asked him, he replied with this disgusting smug on his face: well well, I DO have all the logins on my email….but to just GIVE them to you…hmmm…youkknowwhat? When we get back from the exam.. and everyone leaves after thanking me.. wait for me.. and he winks. My stomach dropped to my feet.
Not all men are abusive, but children won't change them if they are. An abusive human (cause women can also be abusive) doesn't change just because they had a child... if anything, they now have a new human to abuse
i dont think you understood what they were saying correctly. No where does it reference all men and as a man i dont think she was attacking all men by any means.
I don’t think that’s what she meant. She wasn’t generalizing all men intentionally I don’t think. She was saying men who are already abusive narcissistic Assholes don’t change simply after having a daughter. I agree.
I don’t mean to offend anyone and I’m a guy myself but I don’t really find what she said offensive? I don’t think she meant all men or anything she just said that having a daughter doesn’t suddenly turn a man who does bad things into a good person that stops, it’s an innate behaviour in that bad person. Now I don’t quite agree with things being “innate” I believe most behaviours are mixture of nurture and nature but that’s a different argument. The act of having a daughter alone doesn’t change things, fathers can still do horrifying shit.
I could be wrong here, but I read it like “the abusers behaviour is innate. Not that all men are abusive, but that the abusive men’s behaviour is not something they will change because they have a child.
Essentially meaning there’s a difference between living life recklessly by partying hard, vs being violent horrible person.
Again, I could be wrong. This could be one of those “I hate all men” posts and I’m over here thinking the person posted in good faith.
Lol you completely misinterpreted her point. She’s right!! Men that are misogynistic don’t magically become not misogynistic because they have daughters. It is deeply ingrained.
A lot of men are misogynistic towards their daughters, but I think a lot of them the men that are misogynistic, but not towards their daughters specifically, simply don’t view their daughters as “women”. They are their own individual in the dad’s life. They see her for who she is, but they just see all other women as women first. That’s why this cognitive dissonance happens so often
It’s crazy how people can see truth but since it “doesn’t apply to them” it’s wrong? Bruh, stop protecting abusers. You know what’s she’s saying.
Humans,in general, are not very specific in their speech when they think people already understand them. And you’d think everyone would know that rich,powerful people and men especially, are pretty much all dirtbags in their unsanctioned actions
Wait, hang on, is that what they're saying? To me the tweet says that "Just because someone has a daughter doesn't mean they won't stop abusing women if they were doing it prior." I don't see how you can extrapolate "Men are all abusers by nature" from this tweet.
Feels like an over reach OP. She is talking about viciously abusive men (like the rapist she is talking abt) and she is right. Having a daughter won't cure them. It's the same for sociopathic abusive women.
She didn't express her thoughts in the best way, but generally when someone is obviously severely abusive...It's going to be very hard to change them, and a kid is NOT going to solve this.
>Me when I'm illiterate
Quite the opposite actually. If OOP meant "abusive men" she should've said "abusive men" instead of "men". It's poorly worded at best.
>want to assume the worst in women
💀
Fellas, we all know r*pe is wrong right? And none of us would ever do it because it hurts the sanctity of a relationship and it also destroys the victims entire life especially their trust?
I think the answer lies in the middle.
Serial rapists probably dont stop. But for a lot of men, the misogyny is deep when they grow up. Maybe they dont have sisters. Or they have an adversarial relationship with parents, and taught to objectify and dehumanize women. That could stop or lessen when they have daughters.
That kind of attitude is ignorant, prejudiced and known as sexism . It’s one of the last socially acceptable kinds of hate, all this man/masculinity bashing crap. It’s not feminism; that’s not about tearing men down. Whatever is going on recently is not feminism; it’s some kind of rage or revenge against the masculine principle
I think she's actually saying, if already abusive people have kids, their kids aren't going to make them stop being abusive, it's themselves, not their circumstances
Nothing gets fixed magically. You have to work on your issues in order to fix them. And the first step is admitting you have a problem.
But what would I know, I was beaten up as a kid and turned out fine.
“It” is referring to the behaviour in individuals which do it, not specifically men.
Do you genuinely think she’s saying literally all men are rapists?
This is more of an OP face palm because the tweet is clearly discussing men who are rapists.
But yeah, she was def on point. As someone who was born out of rape, I can confirm, my father suddenly becoming a dad did NOT make him stop being a sex offender at all. Didn't phase him in the slightest.
Getting your feelings hurt over hyperbole and thinking that's the true issue when the point is that abusers will abuse no matter who the victims remind them of is some peak Redditor shit.
That’s not how I interpreted this, if a man happens to be an abusive rapist before having kids he is beyond saving and those kids are at risk. This doesn’t mean all men are inherently like that just the ones who are evil won’t suddenly develop a soul because they creampied someone
One problem I have with her sentence is that she only mentions one sex. Women can also be demonic and abusive. Whether it's a man or a woman, if they are bad person - demonic and abusive, then having children will not change anything, they will still be like that.
You completely missed the point. They’re saying that men who abuse women do t stop abusing women because they suddenly have a daughter. Not that men are inherently abusive.
You’re the kind of person that says “masculinity isn’t toxic!!” when people are discussing toxic masculinity.
For abusive men? Yes, it is innate, and it’s not going to get worked out until those men admit they’re abusive and get treatment.
Same for abusive women, yes, but she was clearly making a point about people who think daughters cure abusive fathers of being abusive, so her gendering her point makes sense for the context she’s talking about
"Innate" means essentially "from birth". Color it however you choose, the post from killa. is misandristic.
The same post made about female nature would immediately cause an uproar, but it's currently fashionable to hate on men for their INNATE characteristics.
Fuck I'm apparently behind on my rape quota then. I haven't done it at all.
Seriously, though, this is what people who want to rape use for justification. and even if it was true someone that dangerous should be locked up to keep everyone safe.
If a person doesn’t see women as people to begin with, I’ve never understood how having daughters magically repairs that.
In fact, my observations of such fathers isn’t that they strive to make all women safer or educate other men - they usually just try to overly control their daughters behavior. Ostensibly, they claim it’s to keep the daughters safe, but, it’s rooted more in thinking of women as property, rather than as people.
The real proof of any change is generally in their sons’ treatment of women in their life. The sons have no such heavy handed governance, and are free to treat women exactly as their fathers taught them.
She could have worded it better.
With context or without context it's still a ~men are innately~
Rather than
~these men are innately~
Or something else.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Having kids generally won’t solve any problems that the parents have. Usually will make said problems worse….
Generational Truama: Fun for the whole family! /s
Generational Trauma: For the whole family! /s
Generational Trauma: For the whole family!
Generational Trauma: For the family!
Generational Trauma: For family!
Generation Trauma Family!
Trauma Family!
Traumily!
Traumy!
Generational Trauma For the Hole!
Intergenerational trauma: fun for all the descendants of residential school survivors! /s
Whoever the fuck actually thinks that having a daughter helps a man solve his abusive behaviour? Grade A dumbassery, he just gets another punchbag ffs.
What if the parents' problem is lacking a firstborn to sacrifice to the Eldritch Gods?
To add to this: having *more* kids won’t stop a marriage from failing. It’ll only make it harder to sort out on the other side.
Yeah exactly. Which is literally what the post is saying towards women who have a fantasy that having a kid will solve a problem. Posted here somehow as rage bait as if there was a claim that all men are like this which I don’t think was the intention at all.
it can have the opposite effects too. it can turn an irresponsible loser into a responsible and mature person
Sometimes they hit the mom and not the kid. One of my good friends' ex was abusive, but stopped being violent when she was pregnant... Like it's nice of him to know not to hit pregnant women, but also it's kind of proving he's making the deliberate choice of hitting her when she's not
Yep sometimes a kid is the kick in the pants for someone to positive change But that’s a drastic risk for it actually working….because if not you have a kid that essentially has at minimum one terrible parent It should also be noted that women are just as capable of being the irresponsible loser
It's a huge risk indeed, because it rarely works that way. Raising a child is an incredibly challenging experience, even in the case of the parents being well adjusted and stable. Fuckups and trainwrecks adding a kid to their mix is even more of a challenge. And almost without fail, the fuckups don't realize (or completely ignore) the lasting effects of the steep learning curve until they got their shit together, on their kid(s), in order to claim success. But it is very common for people to focus on the exception when trying to justify the norm.
One of the main reasons why a lot of therapist offices have long waiting list is that there is a huge number of kids, of parents who were fuckup losers, having to deal with the effects of what a fuck up thinks "mature and responsible parenting" looks like.
Goes for mothers *and* fathers.
His youngest child is an infant. My heart goes out to her that she will have to hear about all this when she’s older. 😕
It’s not magic, it doesn’t make them immune to disgusting behaviours. “How could *he* be a rapist? *He has a daughter*!” is the rapist equivalent of “I can’t be racist, some of *my friends* are black!”.
Yeah, didn’t Israel Keys have a wife and a kid, and yet he was still a serial killer. People can be monsters and still seem like normal people on the outside, in fact I’d argue that’s how most serial killers got away with it.
David Parker Ray had a daughter, she even helped him torture rape and murder young women
I feel like you completely misinterpreted OOP's intentions. The point isn't that all men are innately abusive. It's that in men that ARE, it's innate and can't be solved by just giving that person a daughter.
Ya, I was going to point out that same misinterpretation. That said, I still think that OOP's argument isn't well-founded; misogyny and cruelty are largely *learned*, albeit often tacitly as a result of social and cultural conditioning over years / decades. I agree that having kids won't magically change all that, but I would push back against the notion that those views, traits, and behaviors are impossible to change. Hard, in many cases, and success requires buy-in and effort over time and is by no means guaranteed, but a worthwhile goal for men that find themselves holding toxic views.
I certainly agree that "an asshole is just gonna be an asshole" is a bit too easy of an answer. Perhaps there is a limit to how much can be done but "they're JUST an asshole" implies that NOTHING can be done.
Diddy was a career criminal who was involved with actual gang members who were known for their profound violence. Literally started out as a drug dealer, so I really don’t think you can rehabilitate people who make a literal lifestyle out of crime
That’s still not even what OP in the screenshot was saying though. They’re just saying that having daughters doesn’t mean men will suddenly start seeing women as people. This isn’t unique to drug dealers or anyone else you deem morally reprehensible. It’s just misogyny, it’s not a conscious thing men do. But it is the inability to empathize with anyone you don’t relate to, so you see when these men have daughters, they suddenly don’t want them doing x, y, z because they KNOW how men are… bc they are men.
You certainly can't with the dogshit for profit US criminal justice system. I disagree that it's categorically impossible.
The us prison system doesn’t even pretend to be about rehabilitation, it is just meant for revenge and profit. That said up in Canada last week national news broke when a gang member deliberately executed a 12 year old child in broad daylight in a busy a&w because their parent was involved somehow with a gang. I would argue that an individual capable of such barbaric violence is more similar to Heinrich Himmler than a mentally healthy adult and is in fact categorically impossible to rehabilitate and their mere existence presents a mortal threat to any and every single life within handgun range of them.
I don't really see what telling me about the fucked up shit someone did adds to the conversation. Just being a career criminal still doesn't mean the person categorically cannot be rehabilitated. And regarding whether or not the person you mentioned can be, I don't know. And neither do you, which is why the assessment by multiple mental health professionals would be necessary to determine that, not the opinions of random people on the internet.
Sure you can. Like many things, it’s a learned behavior, and if it can be learned then it can be unlearned. Sometimes that means making huge changes in who you surround yourself with and doing the opposite of what you would normally do in situations throughout the day but it’s possible for people who engrossed in a life style of crime or drugs to unlearn and become a different person. I’ve seen it happen first hand. But this is about something totally different
They can choose to rehabilitate, but it usually requires prison and/or an epiphany. He fell into making money with music. I would think it amplified his faults when no one has been honest with him or they're violent and getting paid to be muscle.
Nuance is important. Sometimes it's annoying to have to include but it's essential to generational change and social progress. I think you're 100% correct. There are many reasons people do these things that overlap and changing the context, environment, influences has helped people be better and change. It may be very difficult but as long as you want to change it's a possibility. But they have to *want to* I feel like *especially* with people with money, power, status and very public image it's an entirely different kind of solution because frankly it's a machine printing money with sycophants and yes men that will surely allow things to continue behind the scenes and enable.
i swear half the posts i see from this sub are just the OP interpreting posts in the worst faith they can possibly manage.
It's easy to read it both ways. I mean, grammatically, it clearly states that men are abusive and that abusive nature is innate. It strongly insinuates all men. However, i think it is also easy enough to understand that they probably didn't mean all men are abusive, but that the abusive men are innately abusive. Of course, that begs a whole other debate of whether or not abusive behavior is innate. That insinuates a genetic component that leads to abusive behavior. Maybe that exists, but I would be willing to bet that abusive behavior is learned and therefore not innate. And if a behavior is learned, it can be unlearned. People can rehabilitate.
I would personally say that debating whether we are all or not would be beside the point anyway . The point isn't how many men are abusers, the point is that a woman isn't going to magically enter an abusive man's life and fix/redeem them. In this specific case, by way of being their child.
Pretty much If they are saying it’s innate and can’t be changed that means genetic which directly leads to insinuating that it could be all men that suffer from it making people interpreting it that way as valid The thing is that enough people keep saying “all men” for issues that it’s become harder and harder to say that they don’t mean it as all men, it’s like trying to take most conservatives seriously because theirs been so many that are insane that you must think the entire lot are on the same page
Adding on to that, this seems like a person who tweeted out something expecting only their friends to see it. If it was a blue checkmark (especially from back in the day a blue check meant something) or someone I immediately recognized, I might be more or less judgmental. But it seems to be a rando. It seems the internet never learned anything from Justine Sacco.
OP just wanted to have their feelings hurt and be offended. They got it what they were looking for. I think somebody would need to be LOOKING for an excuse to have a bitch fit to read this the way OP's triggered, touchy ass seemingly did.
‘A post about men literally beating and raping women? Hmmm but how does this hurt my feelings as a man? That’s clearly the more important topic here!’ Every Fucking Time
But won’t someone think of MEN’S feelings?!
Their precious FEELINGS! When women talk about facts we’re emotional, when men’s feelings get hurt, facts go out the window but they’re totes the ‘logical’ ones Screaming, violence and anger is clearly not as emotional as crying to yourself, don’t ya know /s
I’m clearly in the right because I can express my dogshit opinions with a flat tone and straight face which makes you look ridiculously hysterical while defending a topic you’re passionate about (like your basic human rights)
And people act shocked when they learn a woman’s emotional state on her period is closer to a man’s emotional state all the time.
Maybe men don't like being called demonic rapists? Like yes don't disparage entire genders. That was basic I have a dream shit
The blubbering whataboutism that just comes spewing out any time a woman voices an issue, good GRIEF.
As a dude, so many dudes are so fragile about this stuff it's hilarious. It always has to be about them. And generally these dudes are not out in their community working to address real issues that men face, they just bring it up when they have an opportunity to shut down a woman talking about issues women face
The mental gymnastics of people like OP… Truly r/persecutionfetish type stuff
This
Absolutely, and your username is A+++++. I'm working on drawing a Buc-ees mascot with his facepaint on as we speak.
Eh, maybe. It’s possible that OOP meant just what you said, but it’s also just as possible that OOP meant “men are innately abusive and demonic.” I don’t know anything about her, and I suspect we’ve all seen numerous examples of women who genuinely *do* think all men are depraved assholes. It’s not exactly some fringe opinion that no one dares to say aloud. What bugs me is that it is **just so easy** to add a clarifying word in there. No matter what group/subgroup you are talking about. Men, women, Jews, whites, Russians, whatever. It’s fucking lazy to fart out something that sounds very much like you’re talking about *all* men, women, Jews, etc, etc. I’m tired of giving people a “They probably meant ___” pass. If you made a generalization, you should get treated like you made a generalization. Is it the end of the world if someone on Twitter makes a generalization about a group of people? No, absolutely not. But by the same token, it’s also not the end of the world if they get shit for not choosing their words better. Some things in life are really difficult. Saying “some” to improve the quality of your communication is not one of those really difficult things.
I think you’ve nailed it. I believe the identity politics of a situation affects whether someone interprets something as hateful or misinterpreted. There’s an unconscious bias. And many in their replies have used it to make misandrist comments, that go unchallenged, often upvoted. I won’t deny that man babies are a loud group on the internet. I moderate a mental health group and incels wash up frequently. However if I mention the suicide rate is 4:1 for men against women, there’s often a femcel replying with how men murder many women, or questioning how many do it due to shame at things they’ve done. Whataboutism is rife everywhere. And unfortunately it is often a femcel view that men are innately evil or at least heavily predisposed to it. And Twitter being the platform OOP uses just boosts my skepticism about their intent, it’s lazy… Too lazy?
The word innate is unnecessary and redundant then. Better way to say it is, abusers don't change. Wording matters.
This.
There are hundreds of posts like this talking like if every man is a potential rapist or some kind of natural monster. And when someone uses men instead of man and not using any language that, even for a litte bit, points for what you've said was the real intentions, it's pretty clear that she was talking about what she thinks about all men. It is really obvious too... it seams to me that both you and other comments are forcing an interpretation to protect this kind of speech.
That is absolutely not how she worded it or what she said, like at all.
I think the person meant « having a daughter doesn’t make an abuser less abusive… »
That’s definitely what I got from it
I think you misinterpreted. It’s not saying all men have that innate behavior. It’s saying those who do won’t be magically fixed by having a daughter. At least that’s what I hope it says.
This is the problem with the choice of language used. This is what locks in the "Not all men!" response that women hate hearing. Because they *mean* "the type of men that do this behavior," but the language they used was "men do this." It technically can be stretched to mean the former, but they did actually say "all men" even if their mind was intending "selective men." They could have and should have said "some men do this," but choose to say "men do this." Then get upset when people rightfully point out how they just used a blanket statement that is extremely disingenuous and insulting. When the card is flipped and the same language is used to describe negative traits that some women some employ, the exact same response is given: "Women are not a monolith," or any other variation of being upset that we unfairly painted all women negatively when only a select few do that. When using terminology that has two meanings and further one of them is the primary application, why not use the slightly more accurate terminology that better express your views? Your poor choice of language is your fault, not theirs for concluding you had different intentions . Language matters. She *did* actually say all men are naturally predators and pedophiles, even if she secretly meant otherwise.
A valuable lesson on communication
but they never said all men?
Women are crazy. Some women are crazy.
"Men" can refer to some men or all men depending on context. Ambiguous context is a type of dog whistle for misandry. Ambiguous context of similar phrases involving women / people of colour is a type of dog whistle for misogny / racism.
They never said “some men” either, so which is it?
Perhaps engage your critical thinking skills
They said innate. An implication on all men
It doesn't imply that at all.
Yeah, that kind of talk is often use by racist, misoginistic and misandry. The latter one that is misandry can get easily mix up if you don't specify not all are like that...because misandry actually exist and they express themselves like that, "Mans are evil and (keep inserting misandry bullshit)". So yeah is a poor choice of words. Like if you don't want to feed racism, misandry and misoginistic on the internet, please specify by using a word like "some..".
The full context of her tweet is that it is a reply. The topic is already decidedly about abusive men. You shouldn't have to restate that every time to contine a conversation. It'd be really time-consuming, and we'd get nowhere if we couldn't continue talking about something, knowing it's within the context of how we started. "Where's Susan?" "Susan went to the store to get bread." "Did you tell her to grab milk as well?" "Tell who?" "Susan!" "Well, why didn't you say so! Yes, I told Susan to grab the milk as well"
That does not apply at all. A proper name cannot also be used in exchange for the entire group. Even just the name Susan is in itself a very unique specification. Which is the larger point. Because following your own example, the more appropriate thing would be to not even say that. They should have just said predator. Your own example emphasizes the problem. She should have said Susan, instead she said women. Which does not make sense when she means just Susan. Why did she say women when she really means just susan?
Not a good example. Talking about Susan, then goin for "women" would be the same. \-Susan forgot to buy milk. \-Women really forgot what they want to buy. Everyone would see it as a problem. But making it about Mark and men, you somehow justify the error.
Is literally pages of comments before this. Stupid shit. This is exactly it. Use of language tops how you meant to say it every single time.
scrolled to far for this
The problem is that there is a large amount of reactionary misandry going on mostly online but in the real world too. Women have voices and they are valid but they are people too and any one person is as vulnerable to echo chamber and group think as the next. I think that women physically as a group are equally capable and equally express certain kinds of selfish behaviors and prejudices that manifest differently. We're all human. Also considering just how many female teachers are in the news routinely doing bad things... I just think it's silly to think either gender is less capable or inclined to be selfish and cruel, our brains are nearly exactly the same outside minor hormonal differences that don't affect executive thinking so greatly.
>Also considering just how many female teachers are in the news routinely doing bad things... >I just think it's silly to think either gender is less capable or inclined to be selfish and cruel, True, women are just as capable, but just as inclined, statistics say otherwise. "Specifically, 11 percent reported sexual comments, 0.6 percent reported that they were shown or given sexual pictures or photos or were sent sexual messages, 0.9 percent reported having been touched in a sexual manner, and 0.4 percent reported other sexual activity, including sexual intercourse or oral sex. Similar to past research, we found that: Most perpetrators were teachers (63.4 percent) or coaches/gym teachers (19.7 percent). *[Most perpetrators were male (89.1 percent).](https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/protecting-children-from-sexual-abuse/202305/educator-sexual-misconduct-remains-prevalent-in)* The majority of those who experienced educator sexual misconduct were female (72 percent), and in high school at the time, they experienced sexual misconduct." The fact that men make up a much smaller percentage of teachers (20%), yet, are the majority of perpetrators by a staggering percentage tells us that female teachers are much less inclined. The same is true for women in regards almost all crimes, and all violent crimes. Men are much more inclined to commit violent crimes than women. Example, 9 out of 10 murders are committed by men. Does that mean that all men are violent? Of course not. The majority aren't. But men are much more inclined to be than women.
It still say some people are inately abusers which is still bullshit
I think all they’re trying to say is: A man having a daughter does not automatically make them not sexist, or even not abusive. In fact, a lot of abusers are great at rationalising their actions when it’s in their own interest. Plus, the statement being made here sounds like coming from a place of hurt—or just being so sick and angry at how utterly common an occurrence this seems to be for girls and women in general.
That's just not what OOP was saying at all.
I don’t think they mean “all” men, just “men who are already doing evil misogynist shit.”
Not triggering enough to the incels, I'm afraid. OP saw a woman saying something negative about ~~rapists~~ men and just decided to take that personally.  Something on your mind, OP?
I always wonder why people choose to make themselves the subject when others are talking about a specific, violent group of people. Makes them seem like they are actually part of that demographic. Why would you see the need to say stuff like "nOt AlL mEn" aloud? It's obviously not all men, but in this case I felt it was clear. And when women talk about dangerous men and just say "men" it's just a reminder that they don't actually know which ones are the dangerous ones. You can't tell until it's too late.
Women are so guilty of making blanket statements. Women want to divorce you and take all your money. See how dumb this sounds? Just add "some" motherfucker, it's not hard, its your fault for not using proper language
If someone said " extremism is innate in Muslims", no one would be saying "if you read between the lines they didn't mean all Muslims". Y'all really just have random standards and morals.
God, this sub is filled with idiots
Posts and comments have changed. Did 4chan shut down?
Noticed that too
I haven't seen a post that IS NOT "op is the facepalm" in quite some time.
Tbh on this specific sub I recall seeing frequent posts where the OP posts screenshot out of context and/or is desperate to dig up some most offensive meaning when it was not the point. Or the OP got sad that the OOP did _not_ list all possible exceptions for their advice/opinion/study in a single tweet.
Was just thinking the same
imagine the delusion of reading these tweets and leave it thinking these women are the problem
Some men are. And for those men having children doesn’t change that. That’s the point that was being made.
It’s pretty obvious that the OOP is arguing that having kids doesn’t make evil go away and that those who rape are born with this evil that doesn’t go away. It is not arguing that all men are evil. Not a facepalm
Once again the facepalm is OP thinking it's better to bag on someone making a statement against a rapist
Well, in this instance, they are kinda right. Having daughters doesn’t make shitty, misogynistic men any less shitty or misogynistic.
Ok, let's break this down. Reddit comments think OP is just an incel. OP thinks OOP is a misandrist. Context: the story that OOP is reacting to is someone being incredulous that a rapist has daughters. Simplified, OOP says that having daughters doesn't make men stop doing evil things. Its innate. OP's reading of "men doing evil things is innate to men" is an accurate reading of the response even in context. Using the pronoun game, it refers to "abusive, demonic behavior". It is innate to whom/what? The only group of people outlined in the tweet is men. The other reading of "men that are abusive don't stop being abusive when they have daughters. It's an innate trait of those men" is also a valid reading. This reading is a bit charitable and would be closer to a steelman of the position. Ultimately, this tweet is not clear as to its intent, which makes the incel comments a bit wild. This is definitely the kind of tweet that 90% of people would just roll their eyes at and keep scrolling.
Why think deeply when you can just give names huh?
Hey, hey, stop being rational and nuanced. This is reddit. You're gonna get us in trouble. Call someone a name, quick!
This post is definitely getting shut down, I've been seeing allot of rational and nuanced opinions in this thread, which is nice to see this side of reddit.
Thank you 🙏! So many people going wild ITT 💀
Thank you for your service
Finally. Thank you for saving my sanity with this comment. I think I am going to mute this sub for now but thanks
The harsh truth is having female loved ones have never stopped abusers and rapists from doing what they do. In fact, it's often emboldened then as the existence of their female loved ones acts as a moral justification. Usually revolving around some distorted and depraved sense of honor as a man. This dates back to when soldiers would plunder a village and enslave the "enemy women" with the backing of their daughters, sisters, and wives. You can see it in Ukraine now with Russian women encouraging the Russian men to abuse Ukrainian women.
Doing those things is insane whether the person has his own daughters or not. Like, I don't have daughters and I find it horrifying regardless of circumstances. Everyone should.
They are specifically saying having a daughter with an abusive man won't make him more empathetic to women.
I don’t think that’s what it’s saying. I think it’s saying that if a man is shitty and is doing those things, having a daughter isn’t going to make them not act that way.
OOP was saying that an abuser is an abuser. It doesn’t matter if he has a daughter, that won’t stop him from
If men didn’t believe that other men are inherently dangerous we wouldn’t have the cultural cliche of dad’s joking about greeting their daughter’s boyfriends with a shotgun
Excellent point.
Exactly - I saw a brilliant clip where this girl said something to the lines of "when these sexist men become father's, they'll suddenly have to protect their daughters against all of the sexism that they claimed didn't exist" and oof, on point.
I never understand people that read these types of comments and go NOT ALL- OFC it’s never all fucking [insert whatever you want here] were all so fk different how can this % of ALL THE FK HUMANS ON EARTH BE “BAD” When I turned 18 I had a really nasty experience with my Car theory teacher, I forgot my exam login on a piece of paper at home and asked the man if he perhaps had an option for me not to fail my theory exam. Mind you I knew this man for 3 days (3 classes). Each day he’d show us(the class) pictures of his children.. his pregnant wife.. how happy he is and how much he loves them. So we as a class also rlly liked the man for his enthusiasm and stuff. So when I asked him, he replied with this disgusting smug on his face: well well, I DO have all the logins on my email….but to just GIVE them to you…hmmm…youkknowwhat? When we get back from the exam.. and everyone leaves after thanking me.. wait for me.. and he winks. My stomach dropped to my feet.
This defo a misinterpretation
Not all men are abusive, but children won't change them if they are. An abusive human (cause women can also be abusive) doesn't change just because they had a child... if anything, they now have a new human to abuse
sometimes the abuse is geared towards their daughters…..unfortunately speaking from experience.
Looking at this title, and then looking at the screenshot it's like..... No one said that????
i dont think you understood what they were saying correctly. No where does it reference all men and as a man i dont think she was attacking all men by any means.
The real facepalm is your interpretation of this, OP.
Abusive men are. That’s the point she is making. An abuser with a daughter is just that.
but they have a point? having a daughter doesn’t mean they quit that behavior. it shouldn’t have existed in the first place.
I think she's saying men who are like this don't change after having daughters. Not an all men thing.
i think she’s saying that if a man is already abusive then daughters won’t change that, not that all men are abusive
Reminds me of AOC’s speech of “Having a daughter does not make a man decent.”
I don’t think that’s what she meant. She wasn’t generalizing all men intentionally I don’t think. She was saying men who are already abusive narcissistic Assholes don’t change simply after having a daughter. I agree.
I don’t mean to offend anyone and I’m a guy myself but I don’t really find what she said offensive? I don’t think she meant all men or anything she just said that having a daughter doesn’t suddenly turn a man who does bad things into a good person that stops, it’s an innate behaviour in that bad person. Now I don’t quite agree with things being “innate” I believe most behaviours are mixture of nurture and nature but that’s a different argument. The act of having a daughter alone doesn’t change things, fathers can still do horrifying shit.
I could be wrong here, but I read it like “the abusers behaviour is innate. Not that all men are abusive, but that the abusive men’s behaviour is not something they will change because they have a child. Essentially meaning there’s a difference between living life recklessly by partying hard, vs being violent horrible person. Again, I could be wrong. This could be one of those “I hate all men” posts and I’m over here thinking the person posted in good faith.
Op… that’s not what this post says.
OP completely missing the point
The logic is that you wouldnt do something bad to someone elses kid, cus someone can do that to ur kid. This fails miserably however.
think OP is the real facepalm here
Lol you completely misinterpreted her point. She’s right!! Men that are misogynistic don’t magically become not misogynistic because they have daughters. It is deeply ingrained. A lot of men are misogynistic towards their daughters, but I think a lot of them the men that are misogynistic, but not towards their daughters specifically, simply don’t view their daughters as “women”. They are their own individual in the dad’s life. They see her for who she is, but they just see all other women as women first. That’s why this cognitive dissonance happens so often
Then her choice of words is wrong. "innate" that means it's not learned by the patriarchal society.
I think the second post was specifically reffering to already shitty men
Its not saying its innate in men its saying its inmate in abusers.
Sis got a point
Honestly jt might as well be because so many are guilty and so many are complicit
It’s crazy how people can see truth but since it “doesn’t apply to them” it’s wrong? Bruh, stop protecting abusers. You know what’s she’s saying. Humans,in general, are not very specific in their speech when they think people already understand them. And you’d think everyone would know that rich,powerful people and men especially, are pretty much all dirtbags in their unsanctioned actions
Wait, hang on, is that what they're saying? To me the tweet says that "Just because someone has a daughter doesn't mean they won't stop abusing women if they were doing it prior." I don't see how you can extrapolate "Men are all abusers by nature" from this tweet.
Feels like an over reach OP. She is talking about viciously abusive men (like the rapist she is talking abt) and she is right. Having a daughter won't cure them. It's the same for sociopathic abusive women. She didn't express her thoughts in the best way, but generally when someone is obviously severely abusive...It's going to be very hard to change them, and a kid is NOT going to solve this.
Me when I'm illiterate and want to assume the worst in women (seriously OP you had to be deliberately misreading this to come to that conclusion)
>Me when I'm illiterate Quite the opposite actually. If OOP meant "abusive men" she should've said "abusive men" instead of "men". It's poorly worded at best. >want to assume the worst in women 💀
Newsflash…..Psychopaths can have kids.
Men who are abusive, their behavior is innate. Having a daughter does not make it disappear. Hopefully I cleared that up.
The fact that you've completely (or intentionally) misinterpreted OOPs intent is the real facepalm here. C'mon man.
Way to project buddy. Original message isn’t saying ALL men are abusive, just that having a daughter won’t stop an abusive man from being abusing
You’re really coming on here with the “#notallmen” take? Have some class.
you have the reading comprehension of a non english speaker
Oh, yeah, cry me a river, OP, for the poor, poor men
sorry i am a man and don't cry
Maybe that’s the problem?
We're not demonic, we just want to devour your soul for eternity.
We should really force people to take classes on reading comprehension before letting them post online
The internet would be a really empty place then.
Fellas, we all know r*pe is wrong right? And none of us would ever do it because it hurts the sanctity of a relationship and it also destroys the victims entire life especially their trust?
Nonsense. My baby girl wakes up so often, I no longer have the energy to reap souls and bring chaos and darkness to the mortal realms.
I think the answer lies in the middle. Serial rapists probably dont stop. But for a lot of men, the misogyny is deep when they grow up. Maybe they dont have sisters. Or they have an adversarial relationship with parents, and taught to objectify and dehumanize women. That could stop or lessen when they have daughters.
That kind of attitude is ignorant, prejudiced and known as sexism . It’s one of the last socially acceptable kinds of hate, all this man/masculinity bashing crap. It’s not feminism; that’s not about tearing men down. Whatever is going on recently is not feminism; it’s some kind of rage or revenge against the masculine principle
Many of the people who reach Diddy heights of power are sociopaths
I think she's actually saying, if already abusive people have kids, their kids aren't going to make them stop being abusive, it's themselves, not their circumstances
Nothing gets fixed magically. You have to work on your issues in order to fix them. And the first step is admitting you have a problem. But what would I know, I was beaten up as a kid and turned out fine.
“It” is referring to the behaviour in individuals which do it, not specifically men. Do you genuinely think she’s saying literally all men are rapists?
She didn’t say all men. 🙄
We do unfortunately live in a world where the number of men showing abusive behaviour subtly or not is insanely high. Shes half right
This is more of an OP face palm because the tweet is clearly discussing men who are rapists. But yeah, she was def on point. As someone who was born out of rape, I can confirm, my father suddenly becoming a dad did NOT make him stop being a sex offender at all. Didn't phase him in the slightest.
OP, if you feel that you're catching strays from this tweet, then I just have more questions about you
Getting your feelings hurt over hyperbole and thinking that's the true issue when the point is that abusers will abuse no matter who the victims remind them of is some peak Redditor shit.
It's innate to the men that do it
That’s not how I interpreted this, if a man happens to be an abusive rapist before having kids he is beyond saving and those kids are at risk. This doesn’t mean all men are inherently like that just the ones who are evil won’t suddenly develop a soul because they creampied someone
One problem I have with her sentence is that she only mentions one sex. Women can also be demonic and abusive. Whether it's a man or a woman, if they are bad person - demonic and abusive, then having children will not change anything, they will still be like that.
You completely missed the point. They’re saying that men who abuse women do t stop abusing women because they suddenly have a daughter. Not that men are inherently abusive. You’re the kind of person that says “masculinity isn’t toxic!!” when people are discussing toxic masculinity.
Sorry for being innately demonic and abusive, guys :(
It’s cool Broski 😼💪
That's certainly not what I took from that. Critical thinking is not *that* hard...
Kanye saying he didnt see women as women until he had a daughter 🤢🤢🤢
Jesus people in this comment section are fragile. Better not breathe near them, they’ll collapse
Bro did not understand the post at all 💀😭
For abusive men? Yes, it is innate, and it’s not going to get worked out until those men admit they’re abusive and get treatment. Same for abusive women, yes, but she was clearly making a point about people who think daughters cure abusive fathers of being abusive, so her gendering her point makes sense for the context she’s talking about
Not what that means. Means having daughters doesn't cure a dude who already is demonic and abusive.
I think the point is abusive men aren't changing bc they have a daughter. Which is accurate. Don't worry OP, you didn't lose your dick.
OP trying his hardest to be offended thinking we’ll be offended with him. What an idiot
reading between the lines is hard
"Innate" means essentially "from birth". Color it however you choose, the post from killa. is misandristic. The same post made about female nature would immediately cause an uproar, but it's currently fashionable to hate on men for their INNATE characteristics.
OP's showing their ass on this interpretation lol
She wrote that like a total misandrist.
Fuck I'm apparently behind on my rape quota then. I haven't done it at all. Seriously, though, this is what people who want to rape use for justification. and even if it was true someone that dangerous should be locked up to keep everyone safe.
Probably a TERF
If a person doesn’t see women as people to begin with, I’ve never understood how having daughters magically repairs that. In fact, my observations of such fathers isn’t that they strive to make all women safer or educate other men - they usually just try to overly control their daughters behavior. Ostensibly, they claim it’s to keep the daughters safe, but, it’s rooted more in thinking of women as property, rather than as people. The real proof of any change is generally in their sons’ treatment of women in their life. The sons have no such heavy handed governance, and are free to treat women exactly as their fathers taught them.
Don't think this is a facepalm as much as it is a person that's stating how a person's bad behavior will extend into their parenting.
Some PEOPLE genuinely are demonic and abusive
Am I the only one who understands that she's not saying all men; she's saying all abusive men?
She could have worded it better. With context or without context it's still a ~men are innately~ Rather than ~these men are innately~ Or something else.