I think they're saying that they would find it less offensive and would rather face the fate of being mauled and consumed by a bear than face a strange, unattractive and unknown man.
A pretty extreme misandrist position to take if you ask me. A man who flipped the sexes would be banned across the board for the same rhetoric.
Archive for those who don't want to give the BBC clicks: https://archive.ph/faR0M
If you've read the holy texts and what's prescribed in Islamic law based on said texts regarding marriage and divorce, you'll discover it's even more gynocentric than western, Christian influenced laws on marriage and divorce.
There's is something regarding hard line ideological individuals that just attracts those with dark triad traits, abusive and deviant behaviour whether by male feminists readily catalogued on the left or the devout Christian conservatives on the right that will come out (as it did with closeted anti-gay conservative men in politics in the 80s and 90s). We've also seen the same thing happen in cults. There's something to be said to not become ideological and devout.
Why are women so fucking dumb about who they choose to hang out with? Even when they're in their late 20's and 30's they keep acting like they're rebellious teenagers telling mom and dad to fuck off and go get gangbanged by 6+ strangers.
The telltale sign of stunted development.
That's the one thing that gets missed in all of the right and left wing's screeching that men are bad and the manosphere are bad. The commentators saying this have a poor judge of character in men and come from a position of bias. If you are consistently having the same thing happen again and again to you, the problem isn't them, it's you. It's no different from the men who have issues with women.
I also think some of this comes down to the biological firmware that we all have which likely explains this line:
The tussle between men and women is a culture war as old as humanity itself.
And yet, every manosphere talking point had turned out not to match her experience.
There is one aspect of the "manosphere" that actively opposes the concept of marriage. So vilified, they have their own community here to avoid persecution on other supposedly "free speech" forums because commentators keep demanding their closure for wrongthink and those forums capitulate to the mob.
But yes, this is another article that denounces the tradwife concept and yet one of the many ones that also denounces the red pill and the manosphere.
If I could sum up a tl;dr for the article, it would be "don't get married ladies and touch grass because everything you're told online is the polar opposite of the real world and you'll be happier for it".
Something else we already knew but the article confirms it, Southern is going on an all out war against the manosphere. Something that has been picked up by other right wing commentators coming to arms with their left wing counterparts.
Statistically, if a woman is a victim of violence or assault, she is far more likely going to be attacked by someone she knows such as a family member or a friend compared to a stranger (in the woods). Also, a man is far more likely to attack another man than a woman. It's why men make up the vast majority of victims of violence and assault.
I switched to Linux around 15 years ago having dipped my toe into SuSE back when KDE 3 was the latest release.
I am that individual who says "I use Arch, btw" because I prefer timely updates (tested quickly before release) of software I am using rather than having a snapshot and a wait of months before I get updates.
There are a few things that I wish Linux had. The ability to do BIOS updates. Easy support for Secure Boot as in the future, Microsoft is going to mandate it for all computer manufacturers who want to install Windows (that will be all of them). Even I look at this with dread, how is someone new to Linux supposed to understand this? There are also issues with getting firmware and devices to work if they are new because everyone tests for Windows and calls it a day. And I do understand the concerns of people who want an easy way to install Linux on a PC. It has come leaps and bounds but I am that one person who still installs Arch if I ever need to from a command line.
Eventually it will become a cloud OS and you'll be expected to pay a licence (with the purchase of your computer or a boxed copy) and an ongoing subscription fee to use it like with Microsoft 365. I expect Apple to go the same way.
The Linux kernel has a code of conduct. I was very vocal against its introduction, preferring merit over politics for code submission, but I am just one voice in a sea of wokeness. At this point, if you want to avoid all the CoC in the FOSS sea, you're going to have to create your own operating system and that needed to start in the 90s at the latest because, as with consoles on the market, it'll be impossible to gain traction from companies to support it if there is more than three (ask the BSD crowd).
Khan is mayor for life. There's literally nothing that will make the majority of the electorate think twice and vote for another candidate.
Not that it matters, the UK has its own Uniparty situation like the USA does. You have Conservatives in name only and left wing politics dominating. With all the other parties falling in line and being controlled opposition.
Reform UK stood 323 candidates and only had 2 councillors elected in local elections that they statistically should do better in compared to the general election. They were beaten by the Workers Party of Britain run by George Galloway! People will say this is the election that proved the Tories downfall for the general election but I'd say this showed that Reform is toast. And considering how Reform has been capitulating to Hope Not Hate as of late in relation to selecting candidates, deserved.
I fear that this forthcoming decade will bring a forthcoming consensus that the Internet is too big to manage by states alone alongside a desire for digital sovereignty and digital border control and that there will be a move toward heavily regulated national Intranets with potentially sub-Intranets for individual states within a country. While the Internet will be restricted to International communication for trade and Government. Large corporations will act as middlemen for any communication you want to do outside of the Intranet like the phone company is for international phone calls. Everything that goes in and out of a countries Internet connections will be monitored and surveilled by national security agencies. It would also make escaping it by VPN or Tor physically impossible.
The like of Anthony Albanese, the Prime Minister of Australia would love the idea of a state controlled Intranet where anything negative of him is banned and where nothing can come in from outside the country because it would be caught at the digital border. At which point, moderation will move from moderators and AI run by websites to police and intelligence agencies running AI across the whole Intranet. It seems to come back to the desire of celebrities, politicians and other high status individuals to end user-generated content like comments, vlogs and posts to protect themselves from criticism, offence, uncomfortable truths and scrutiny (a.k.a. "hate speech" and "misinformation") and turn news agencies and media outlets into glorified press release outlets for themselves and approved individuals and companies (such as the vaccine manufacturers during Covid-19).
Proponents of the Intranet will argue that it protects kids from harm and that most people only access the likes of Google, Facebook, Netflix and Amazon and they'll still be running country based services on national Intranets so the vast majority of people will see no difference in their web browsing. They'd also argue that countries have the right to protect their digital borders in the same way they protect their physical borders. Oddly enough Satellite television in the 80s in Europe started as a pan-European concept before being segregated into national services behind encryption in the 90s to prevent those in other countries viewing content for other countries. The Internet is going the same way.
The UK Government has a concept that the whole of the Internet is a public place and that every private website is synonymous with a private building that is accessible to the public, including those who require memberships to restrict access. Which is why they're keen on banning pornography and nudity as these things would face criminal charges to anyone who did them in real life. It also relates to the concept that you don't have an expectation of privacy in a public place and the Government believes the same applies online.
There is also a desire for the abolition of anonymity online, where everyone can easily be identified to the authorities or anyone else on request, making it easier to expose whistleblowers, out those speaking uncomfortable truths and ensuring mass self-censorship for fear of being cancelled.
I guess if they didn't declare incels (and by definition, not having a girlfriend or wife) misogynistic, they'd never get their results published by any institution. Because the consensus among the publishers is that heterosexual men are valued based on their ability to attract a woman and if they can't, the rejection by women is by itself an act of misogyny. Fail to adhere to that belief and you're not getting published anywhere.
Reminds me of the DANMASK study which had to be gimped in order to be published because of the overwhelming assumption that face masks were good (they're not) and this study debunked their claims alongside a century of studies that were all dismissed in 2020 because of political correctness and the need to "do something".
It's a real problem in the social sciences where if your findings do not match the beliefs of the consensus, you're not getting published.
Other research has shown that they have a much higher proportion of neuroatypical individuals such as those on the autism spectrum compared to the rest of society. They're also more likely to be low on extroversion (introverted).
Which makes sense as we know that women in general prefer neurotypical and non-disabled men when it comes to long term relationship preferences.
What makes it worse is that in order to get a relationship, you need to be pro-social and preselected. Your ability to interact and socialise and therefore be successful is based on your appearance. People want to be around attractive people, people who have been pre-selected (do you wonder why when you have a girlfriend, other women start noticing you?) and people who draw other people in. Incels don't have that so end up in a perpetual cycle. Worse still, most of what makes you and your personality is genetic, hard-coded into your DNA which you can't change and personality is hard set by adulthood, when inceldom really starts to take hold.
Anyone who says it's all about personality and nothing else is lying to you. Anyone who says there's a soul mate for everyone and that everyone will find someone is also lying to you. And anyone who says you can change every aspect of yourself by going to the gym and touching grass is a genetics denier and also a liar. Not that the gym and touching grass are bad per se but they are being grossly oversold as solutions for everything and "blank slate" self-help gurus are exploiting people for cash by promising everything and ultimately telling them things they could find out for free online.
It was inevitable. What was happening is that women were sending one word replies to men so men would still have to make the opening gambit. Two things that women in general hate - making the first move and rejection. Bumble was never going to override the biological firmware.
Those "misogynists" have really hit a nerve, haven't they? It's as if they've discovered an uncomfortable truth that would destroy the foundation of society the Australian Government would like to preserve (gynocracy) if it was mass communicated.
This may also be a reaction to the stabbings at the Westfield mall recently where the protagonist was a single male.
As an aside, is this the same Albanese who wanted criticism, scrutiny and parody of him to be wiped from the Internet?
Yes, the recent co-ordinated universal attacks on the manosphere, red pill commentary, incels, MGTOW and bachelorhood as a lifestyle choice seem very suspect to me.