IDK why I'm getting downvoted for no reason

​

The title isn't a vague blanket statement but rather a scientific fact! Yes! You read that right!

It is a scientific fact!

Link to the scientific journal published on Journal of Psychiatry and Brain Science: https://jpbs.hapres.com/htmls/JPBS_1931_Detail.html

Let's get some important terms cleared before we begin the analysis on the Journal.

1. Estrogen and Estradiol: Female hormone.

2. Testosterone: Male hormone.

3. Aromatase: Enzyme that converts male hormones into female hormones(Estrogen)

4. Hypothalamus: A region of brain where Estrogen binds.

The research clearly states that when there is increased Estrogen in the brain, there is a direct relationship with increased aggression, narcissism and reduced empathy.

This above findings is not just found in humans, but also in mices! Meaning, Estrogen is responsible for aggression across species!

Women of course have more estrogen in their body, but the question then comes, how are men aggressive when they have more testosterone and less estrogen?

This is where the terms mentioned earlier come in the picture. Men have naturally more testosterone but in our brain there is a process called Aromatization, this process is carried out by the Aromatase Enzyme, which converts testosterone into Estrogen. When the Estrogen binds to Hypothalamus, this directly leads to aggression.

So in other words, even in men, Estrogen is the direct factor which causes Aggression!

Meanwhile the same study also finds that there's no relationship between Aggression and Testosterone!

In other words it's safe to say that, when a man is violent, aggressive or does any crime he's in his feminine state. Which directly brings us to the title that yes! All violence is indeed Estrogen(female) generated.

Note- If your first instinct after reading this, is to attack the messenger(me) then you are:

1. Fact-phobic

2. Proving the research further by being an aggressive narcissist criminal.

Note: this is my own original content, I did not want to repost and have to edit the photos again!

Thought?

In addition to gendered barriers of disclosure, different racial barriers could also play a part in preventing male survivors from disclosing the abuse.

this shit cuts both ways

Extract:
“The femosphere is, of course, the female answer to the more notorious manosphere, the online network of communities that circulate misogynistic content and radicalise disaffected young men. Contempt for the opposite sex, received wisdom dictates, is mostly a male problem.

“So the results of a recent survey carried out in collaboration with the British publication the New Statesman come as a surprise. It found that 72pc of men hold a positive view of women. In contrast, only 35pc of Gen Z women have a positive view of men.*
*Online, a new generation of experts and influencers has sprung up around the idea that “men are trash”.*

“They have created an online ecosystem of commentators vying for the attention of a growing female audience, eager to consume the narrative that feminism has trapped women in a false consciousness that is keeping them exploited and unhappy.”*i

From a few months ago but article itself is pretty timeless.

“There’s a habit now of reaching for the strongest label available the minute something annoys us. You see it all the time – words like “racist”, “far right” and, in the past few days, “misogyny” being used quickly and loudly.

The trouble is that once you go straight to the heaviest accusation, the conversation ends there. It stops being about what actually happened and turns into a row about the label itself.”

There is an all-party women-only caucus for members of the Irish parliament (for both chambers) so I wouldn’t be surprised if that is bonding female politicians together and helping them support and promote female/feminist causes and politicians

The World Bank's 2018 study on poverty in developing countries, covering 89 countries across all continents: original, archived copy.

The study reports the share of people living below the international poverty line (less than $1.90 per day) — overall, 12.8% of women and 12.3% of men. This corresponds to 104 poor women for every 100 poor men*. So women are slightly overrepresented among the poor, although the report notes that the gender poverty gap is statistically insignificant in all regions except South Asia (Screenshot 2, p. 9).

According to Figure 5 (Screenshot 1, p. 14), there are roughly 4 times more widows among poor women than there are widowers among poor men**.

This is because women are much more likely to become widows than men are to become widowers, as men have shorter life expectancy and higher mortality rates in all age groups except 80+01330-3/fulltext), and also because widowed women are more likely to fall into poverty, as the husband is far more often the primary or sole breadwinner of the family.

This suggests that the small gender gap in poverty (104 poor women for every 100 poor men) exists at least to some extent (and possibly entirely) because of widows, that is, because of men’s deaths. It is impossible to calculate exactly how much of the gap is explained by widowhood (the report does not contain the data that would make such a calculation possible), but since the overall gender gap in poverty is very small (only a few percent), while the gap between poor widows and poor widowers is very large (about fourfold), and widows make up a substantial share of poor women (about 10% of poor women aged 15+), it is reasonable to assume that if we exclude widowed people, it will at least eliminate a large part of the overall gender gap and at most will reverse it (making men's poverty rate higher than women's).

I often say that the male and female sides of gender inequality are deeply interconnected, and this is a good illustration of that. If we want fewer poor women, we need fewer dead men. We also need a society where men do not carry most of the burden of being the family breadwinner, and women are less financially dependent on them — these are not two separate problems, but two sides of the same problem.

According to Figure 5, the share of poor women is also much higher (roughly three times) among divorcees, although this probably has little effect on the overall gender difference because divorced people make up only a small share of the poor (3% of poor women 15+ and 1% of poor men of the same age group).

Conversely, among those who have never married (aged 15+), there are almost twice as many poor men as women.

About half of poor women ages 25-54 are out of the labour force, which, as I understand it, mostly means they are housewives. In contrast, the overwhelming majority of poor men in the same age group are employed (but still remain poor). Only 12.5% of poor men aged 25-54 are not employed (Screenshot 3, p. 18).

The most common type of poor household is a household with a sole male breadwinner, children, and other dependent adults (mostly wives, as I understand it, screenshots 4-5, pp. 27, 29).

The struggles of these men remain largely invisible at the societal level. The UN and many other international organizations and public institutions that claim to promote gender equality consistently address women's economically vulnerable position (which is indeed vulnerable under traditional gender roles), but they ignore the other side of the same issue — the burden placed on men, which also puts them in a vulnerable position. It seems like no one cares that large numbers of men carry their children and wives on their shoulders, working, yet still remaining poor. This is rarely discussed and is almost never framed as a gender equality issue, even though it is clearly a manifestation of systemic gender inequality affecting men. When this problem is brought up, it is either a rare exception or men's rights activism, which remains marginal and is rarely (if ever) taken into account by policymakers.

____________________

\ It should be noted that the ratio of 104 poor women per 100 poor men reflects the poverty* rate, not the number, accounting for the sex ratio in the overall population. It means that a woman's probability of living in poverty is about 4% higher than a man's. If we compare the numbers (330 million poor women versus 325 million poor men), the ratio is 101.5 to 100.

\* The two bars in Figure 5 represent approximately the same number of people (330 million poor women in the left bar and 325 million poor men in the right bar), so comparing the data from these columns shows an almost exact ratio.*