Neighbour of the Beast

Sheldon Cooper makes the joke work better than just a generic nerd

This is the book version of not understanding Target audience Men more or less understand that media for women is written to be liked by women and not men, so they just ignore it Women on the other hand seem to generally not understand this concept and treat men's stuff as bad

Feminists blame men for things that didn't even exist.

Thats bc Feminists have a vested interest in perpetuating circumcision bc theres literally nothing more misandristic than putting blades & crushing clamps to penises involuntarily. Hospital policy of mutilate boys & protect girls signals female privilege & protection. thats why.

They forget the “Wo” in “women” when they see women committing crimes and immediately start abusing and blaming men.

The claim that “misogyny kills, but misandry merely annoys” is a rhetorical shield, not an empirical claim, as it rests on selective framing, ignores the actual distribution of lethal violence, and applies an explicit double standard to identity-based hostility. Most homicides are not ideological, since data from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime shows that the large majority of global intentional homicides are driven by organized crime, gang conflicts, robberies, socioeconomic disputes, and immediate interpersonal altercations. Furthermore, men commit roughly 90% of these killings, and men and boys also make up the large majority of victims, at around 80% globally. Because male-on-male lethal violence is the statistical norm, no serious criminologist treats it as an expression of misandry. Treating male-on-female homicide as definitionally ideological while treating the much larger volume of male-on-male homicide as non-ideological is special pleading. The attempt to inflate the threat of broad-scale misogynistic ideology through online radicalization runs into the same numbers, given that clear, self-identified incel-motivated attacks have produced fewer than 50 deaths worldwide across more than a decade. While each of these deaths is a real tragedy for the people killed, they do not provide evidence of a population-level killing machine. Media outlets have repeatedly stretched the category, labeling socially isolated or mentally ill young men as ideological actors after the fact to fit a preferred story. This practice of conceptual inflation was evident during the tragic 2021 Plymouth shooting carried out by Jake Davison. Although early coverage treated the incident as incel terrorism, the official UK counter-terrorism assessment did not. Investigators found engagement with incel-related material, but also severe mental health problems and a family conflict that began with his mother; these were the actual drivers, not an ideologically driven terror mission. The same institutions that inflate rare male-perpetrated cases systematically minimize or reframe overt anti-male hostility. Viral content in which women describe lighting a son on fire, throwing him into the streets, or treating a male child as their “worst fear” is routinely filed under hyperbole, rage-bait, or empowerment. Equivalent language directed at daughters would trigger rapid deplatforming and, in many jurisdictions, immediate police attention, demonstrating that enforcement is completely asymmetrical. This asymmetry continues into real-world violence, as Office for National Statistics data shows that men comprise roughly one-third of domestic abuse victims in the UK. This means hundreds of thousands of men experience serious physical partner violence each year. Although a smaller, non-trivial number are killed, these cases are almost never analyzed as symptoms of structural misandry. When a man kills a woman, the act is routinely diagnosed as the product of systemic misogyny, but when a woman kills a man, the act is treated as a private tragedy, revealing a consistent interpretive rule where identity-based animosity is visible only in one direction. The attitudes are not confined to fringe accounts, as an April 2026 Merlin Strategy poll for the New Statesman found that only 35% of British women under 25 hold a positive view of men. By contrast, 72% of young men hold a positive view of women, and only 7% express an unfavorable one, indicating the hostility is markedly one-sided. Governments have responded with dedicated public money, such as the UK’s Misogyny Prevention Fund, while showing no institutional interest in the parallel, algorithmically amplified hostility directed at boys and men. The slogan survives because it treats one form of prejudice as a national security problem and the other as a harmless social trend. Misandry does not “merely annoy”; it normalizes casual contempt, rewards hostility toward boys in plain sight, and ensures that only one side of the ledger is ever treated as a moral emergency. The double standard is the point.