u/MikasaYuuichi

Kind of interesting when you think about it.

If the sub has around 20k weekly visitors, you’d expect at least some posts to consistently cross 1k upvotes. But that almost never happens.

So what’s going on here?

Is it that most people are just lurking and not engaging?
Or is it that fewer people actually agree with the content than it seems?

Because let’s be honest, if the narrative here was more socially acceptable or aligned with what people are comfortable agreeing with, the engagement would likely be much higher.

Not saying one way or the other, but the gap between traffic and engagement is noticeable.

Most mainstream discussions treat male violence as a glitch in the system or a result of toxic individual choices. However, from a structural perspective, male violence is not a glitch. It is a feature. To understand why it persists, we must look at who benefits from it and how it is manufactured through material conditions. The state and the ruling class require a class of people willing to exert and endure violence to protect capital and project imperial power. To ensure a steady supply, society maintains a state of economic vulnerability and social alienation. By keeping working-class communities in a state of precariousness, the system creates an economic draft where violence or military service becomes one of the few viable paths to survival.

There is a massive systemic hypocrisy at play within our existing hierarchies. The same top brass that condemns male aggression is often the same group that mandates conscription, funnels men into high-risk industries, and glorifies state-sanctioned violence. We tell men to be peaceful in their personal lives while designing a world where their primary value to the system is their utility as a shield or a weapon. We see this clearly in current events, such as the push for conscription in Germany, where the state demands men fill out questionnaires and undergo medical checks to prepare for potential conflict, treating them as disposable resources for the interests of the state.

From a class-struggle perspective, male-on-male violence also serves as a tool for division. When working-class men are pushed into environments of scarcity and frustration, they are more likely to come into conflict with one another. This horizontal violence keeps the marginalized busy competing for crumbs rather than organizing collectively against the hierarchies that keep them impoverished. Poverty is not just a contributor to violence. It is the fuel used to keep the fire burning so that those at the top can maintain their power without being challenged.

If we actually want to reduce violence and improve outcomes for men, we must stop treating it as an individual moral failing and start treating it as a labor and class issue. We cannot ask men to simply be better while the system is actively training, paying, or forcing them to be violent. True safety for men and society at large will only come when we dismantle the structures that view human life as disposable and prioritize the fulfillment of human needs over the projection of power. Addressing the root causes means tackling economic inequality and the broader idea that men are expected to be expendable.

Hey everyone,

I’ve been working through TOP and I love the hands-on, project-based approach. It’s been amazing for learning the logic and development side, but I’m realizing my design skills are lacking.

Does anyone know of a curriculum or resource for UI/UX that follows a similar philosophy? Specifically, something that:

• Is free or very low cost.
• Doesn’t hold your hand too much.
• Focuses on building a real portfolio rather than just watching videos.

Thanks in advance for any leads

There is a significant double standard in how society discusses gendered socialization that needs to be addressed. When a woman exhibits misogynistic attitudes, the general consensus is that she is a victim of her environment. We frequently use terms like internalized misogyny to describe how cultural pressure and systemic structures teach women to view themselves and others through a biased lens. In these cases, society rightly acknowledges that these views were not present at birth but were instead socialized into her over time.

However, the moment the conversation shifts to men, that nuance completely evaporates. Instead of viewing misogyny as a systemic issue or a result of lifelong indoctrination, it is often treated as a personal and inherent flaw. It is as if society believes men are born with the knowledge of these attitudes rather than learning them from the exact same system that women inhabit. Men are raised with the same cultural scripts and the same media influences, yet they are rarely afforded the same recognition of being products of their upbringing.

This perspective relies on a biological fallacy that suggests men are naturally prone to these behaviors. If misogyny were truly an innate male trait rather than a learned behavior, it would not persist in the face of modern legal and social consequences. Most men do not want to be social pariahs. They adopt these attitudes because they were raised in a culture that rewards certain behaviors while socially punishing those who refuse to follow the established rules. By ignoring the role of indoctrination, it becomes impossible to actually solve the problem because structural flaws are being conflated with individual nature.

It is frustrating to see the systemic excuse used to provide empathy for one group while the other group is told their flaws are just part of their nature. We need to start acknowledging that men do not live in a vacuum. We are part of the same broken system and are conditioned by it from day one. Real progress can only happen when we admit that men also learn these behaviors and are not naturally predisposed to them.