Genderswap logo Genderswap

Permalink to original version of “Panphobia, Violence Against Men, and the Modern Lynch Mob ” Panphobia, Violence Against Men, and the Modern Lynch Mob 

 Men only train carts in Japan

Japanese Subways have recently added men only carts, proving that “Separate but Equal” is making a comeback.

Nobody is entitled to any feeling, including the perception of being safe. You may have the right to be safe, but whether or not you recognize that safety is not a right.

An argument that unfortunately still needs to be had today is whether feeling safe should be considered a human right. We see an unfortunately number of individuals citing this fallacious statement as though the issue has been decided decades prior, despite the theoretical holes which are obvious to anyone with a fully active frontal lobe.

Recently, news website published an article titled The right to feel safe: Men should be able to use public transport without fear.

While a refutation of an opinion piece may seem an unusual way to begin the opening chapter of a book regarding a refutation of neo progressive talking points, the article in question echoed much of the flawed reasoning and fallacy ridden arguments as other proponents of a “right to feel safe.”

The self-defeating nature of the argument is made evident quickly when you point out the subjective nature of it. Rights, as a concept, are supposed to be objective in their entirety. The ideological structure of equal rights movements of the past and present is that all rights, specifically legal rights are legislated and executed to the same standards for all citizens. With subjective feelings such as safety, the same action that would be considered a violation of one individual’s right to feeling safe may be considered a commonplace action by another. There would be simply no way to enforce the notion of a “right to feel safe” without making serious infractions upon other civil liberties.

Some will make the claim that “Violence against men” is at epidemic levels and that their lack of comfort is a reasonable response to the high risk of violence. However, that claim is philosophically inconsistent and a straight up farce when examined statistically.

When a claim is made that a specific demographic is subject to a certain epidemic is facing a stream of violence, it implies that they’re facing an amount of violence far greater than that to the alternative. If someone talks about the epidemic of “Violence against men” it implies that the majority of violence is perpetrated against men, or that violence against men is somehow worse than that against women. However, the prior statement isn’t true, as women are the majority of victims for almost every type of violent crime. According to a National Institute of Health Statistic, women represent 77% of those killed by homicide. According to, women, whether black, white, asian, or mestizo, were the vast majority of those shot by police while unarmed. Even crimes traditionally viewed through a lens of male victimhood show near-parity of the gender of victims. Intimate partner violence, a crime typically seen as female violence towards men, is a crime that victimizes women a shocking 53% of the time, according to the CDC.

Not only is violence against women more common than violence against men, it is also more likely to be punished lightly or ignored entirely. Husbands convicted of killing spouses 14% less likely to receive a prison sentence than wives convicted of killing spouses, according to The Bureau of Justice. A Harvard University study exposed that people convicted of Vehicular Homicides, the length of the sentence is 53% longer for those who killed a man rather than a woman. This trend continues across every violent crime with statistics available for it.

That leaves only one reason for this prioritization of the protection of men, misogyny and devaluation of female life. The outdated tradition of viewing men’s lives from a funhouse lens to amplify their prioritization over women

Despite men being at a lower risk of victimization, and having a far greater of punishing the attacker, it seems that the gap is not wide enough for some. For today’s neo-progressives, equal treatment under the law is not just considered a non-priority, it is something to be actively fought against.

This is not progress. This is not moving society forward, this is regressing back to the era of Jim Crow, where the mere accusation against a black woman would be considered evidence enough to string her from a tree, assuming that the accuser was a white man. The sole difference? All women are at risk now.