A thing I keep seeing in conversations about gendered violence is the idea that if patriarchy were the cause, most men would be violent. That assumption is flawed. Systems don’t work like switches. They don’t produce identical outcomes in everyone. Patriarchy doesn’t “turn men violent”. It structures probabilities, permissions, and justifications. Most men aren’t violent, and that doesn’t contradict patriarchy at all. It actually fits how systems operate. The real question isn’t “why aren’t all men violent?” It’s “why is violence so disproportionately male, and why does it so often follow patterns of entitlement, control, and punishment toward women?” Individual factors explain who becomes violent: trauma, insecurity, emotional regulation, perceived loss of status. But culture explains how that violence is expressed, who it’s directed at, and how much society excuses or minimises it. Patriarchy doesn’t create anger. It tells men when anger is justified, who it can be taken out on, and when it should be excused. That’s why violence doesn’t need to be universal to be structural. A system doesn’t need to make most people violent to be responsible for violence. It only needs to decide whose aggression is legitimised, whose fear is dismissed, and whose suffering is normalised. That’s where patriarchy operates. Calling this a “men problem” isn’t about saying men are inherently bad. It’s about responsibility. Patriarchy was built by men, benefits men as a group, and is still largely upheld by men, consciously or unconsciously. Men can be harmed by patriarchy and still benefit from it. Those things coexist. But women experience the worst outcomes. That asymmetry matters. So when people say “all men until no men”, I don’t hear “men are the enemy”. I hear “patriarchy until no patriarchy”. If men don’t actively dismantle what advantages them, they will keep reproducing the same violence they claim to oppose. #MensGrowth #AccountabilityWork #UnlearningPatriarchy #HealthyMasculinity #GenderJustice

#duet with @Abigail Carey #voiceactingchallenge

#duet with @Terence Davis Voice Acting #voiceactingchallenge i messed up the last group of lines but hey, first take, and I love it ❤️

A thing I keep seeing in conversations about gendered violence is the idea that if patriarchy were the cause, most men would be violent. That assumption is flawed. Systems don’t work like switches. They don’t produce identical outcomes in everyone. Patriarchy doesn’t “turn men violent”. It structures probabilities, permissions, and justifications. Most men aren’t violent, and that doesn’t contradict patriarchy at all. It actually fits how systems operate. The real question isn’t “why aren’t all men violent?” It’s “why is violence so disproportionately male, and why does it so often follow patterns of entitlement, control, and punishment toward women?” Individual factors explain who becomes violent: trauma, insecurity, emotional regulation, perceived loss of status. But culture explains how that violence is expressed, who it’s directed at, and how much society excuses or minimises it. Patriarchy doesn’t create anger. It tells men when anger is justified, who it can be taken out on, and when it should be excused. That’s why violence doesn’t need to be universal to be structural. A system doesn’t need to make most people violent to be responsible for violence. It only needs to decide whose aggression is legitimised, whose fear is dismissed, and whose suffering is normalised. That’s where patriarchy operates. Calling this a “men problem” isn’t about saying men are inherently bad. It’s about responsibility. Patriarchy was built by men, benefits men as a group, and is still largely upheld by men, consciously or unconsciously. Men can be harmed by patriarchy and still benefit from it. Those things coexist. But women experience the worst outcomes. That asymmetry matters. So when people say “all men until no men”, I don’t hear “men are the enemy”. I hear “patriarchy until no patriarchy”. If men don’t actively dismantle what advantages them, they will keep reproducing the same violence they claim to oppose. #MensGrowth #AccountabilityWork #UnlearningPatriarchy #HealthyMasculinity #GenderJustice

#duet with @Abigail Carey #voiceactingchallenge

#duet with @Terence Davis Voice Acting #voiceactingchallenge i messed up the last group of lines but hey, first take, and I love it ❤️

A thing I keep seeing in conversations about gendered violence is the idea that if patriarchy were the cause, most men would be violent. That assumption is flawed. Systems don’t work like switches. They don’t produce identical outcomes in everyone. Patriarchy doesn’t “turn men violent”. It structures probabilities, permissions, and justifications. Most men aren’t violent, and that doesn’t contradict patriarchy at all. It actually fits how systems operate. The real question isn’t “why aren’t all men violent?” It’s “why is violence so disproportionately male, and why does it so often follow patterns of entitlement, control, and punishment toward women?” Individual factors explain who becomes violent: trauma, insecurity, emotional regulation, perceived loss of status. But culture explains how that violence is expressed, who it’s directed at, and how much society excuses or minimises it. Patriarchy doesn’t create anger. It tells men when anger is justified, who it can be taken out on, and when it should be excused. That’s why violence doesn’t need to be universal to be structural. A system doesn’t need to make most people violent to be responsible for violence. It only needs to decide whose aggression is legitimised, whose fear is dismissed, and whose suffering is normalised. That’s where patriarchy operates. Calling this a “men problem” isn’t about saying men are inherently bad. It’s about responsibility. Patriarchy was built by men, benefits men as a group, and is still largely upheld by men, consciously or unconsciously. Men can be harmed by patriarchy and still benefit from it. Those things coexist. But women experience the worst outcomes. That asymmetry matters. So when people say “all men until no men”, I don’t hear “men are the enemy”. I hear “patriarchy until no patriarchy”. If men don’t actively dismantle what advantages them, they will keep reproducing the same violence they claim to oppose. #MensGrowth #AccountabilityWork #UnlearningPatriarchy #HealthyMasculinity #GenderJustice

#duet with @Abigail Carey #voiceactingchallenge

#duet with @Terence Davis Voice Acting #voiceactingchallenge i messed up the last group of lines but hey, first take, and I love it ❤️

A thing I keep seeing in conversations about gendered violence is the idea that if patriarchy were the cause, most men would be violent. That assumption is flawed. Systems don’t work like switches. They don’t produce identical outcomes in everyone. Patriarchy doesn’t “turn men violent”. It structures probabilities, permissions, and justifications. Most men aren’t violent, and that doesn’t contradict patriarchy at all. It actually fits how systems operate. The real question isn’t “why aren’t all men violent?” It’s “why is violence so disproportionately male, and why does it so often follow patterns of entitlement, control, and punishment toward women?” Individual factors explain who becomes violent: trauma, insecurity, emotional regulation, perceived loss of status. But culture explains how that violence is expressed, who it’s directed at, and how much society excuses or minimises it. Patriarchy doesn’t create anger. It tells men when anger is justified, who it can be taken out on, and when it should be excused. That’s why violence doesn’t need to be universal to be structural. A system doesn’t need to make most people violent to be responsible for violence. It only needs to decide whose aggression is legitimised, whose fear is dismissed, and whose suffering is normalised. That’s where patriarchy operates. Calling this a “men problem” isn’t about saying men are inherently bad. It’s about responsibility. Patriarchy was built by men, benefits men as a group, and is still largely upheld by men, consciously or unconsciously. Men can be harmed by patriarchy and still benefit from it. Those things coexist. But women experience the worst outcomes. That asymmetry matters. So when people say “all men until no men”, I don’t hear “men are the enemy”. I hear “patriarchy until no patriarchy”. If men don’t actively dismantle what advantages them, they will keep reproducing the same violence they claim to oppose. #MensGrowth #AccountabilityWork #UnlearningPatriarchy #HealthyMasculinity #GenderJustice

#duet with @Abigail Carey #voiceactingchallenge

#duet with @Terence Davis Voice Acting #voiceactingchallenge i messed up the last group of lines but hey, first take, and I love it ❤️

A thing I keep seeing in conversations about gendered violence is the idea that if patriarchy were the cause, most men would be violent. That assumption is flawed. Systems don’t work like switches. They don’t produce identical outcomes in everyone. Patriarchy doesn’t “turn men violent”. It structures probabilities, permissions, and justifications. Most men aren’t violent, and that doesn’t contradict patriarchy at all. It actually fits how systems operate. The real question isn’t “why aren’t all men violent?” It’s “why is violence so disproportionately male, and why does it so often follow patterns of entitlement, control, and punishment toward women?” Individual factors explain who becomes violent: trauma, insecurity, emotional regulation, perceived loss of status. But culture explains how that violence is expressed, who it’s directed at, and how much society excuses or minimises it. Patriarchy doesn’t create anger. It tells men when anger is justified, who it can be taken out on, and when it should be excused. That’s why violence doesn’t need to be universal to be structural. A system doesn’t need to make most people violent to be responsible for violence. It only needs to decide whose aggression is legitimised, whose fear is dismissed, and whose suffering is normalised. That’s where patriarchy operates. Calling this a “men problem” isn’t about saying men are inherently bad. It’s about responsibility. Patriarchy was built by men, benefits men as a group, and is still largely upheld by men, consciously or unconsciously. Men can be harmed by patriarchy and still benefit from it. Those things coexist. But women experience the worst outcomes. That asymmetry matters. So when people say “all men until no men”, I don’t hear “men are the enemy”. I hear “patriarchy until no patriarchy”. If men don’t actively dismantle what advantages them, they will keep reproducing the same violence they claim to oppose. #MensGrowth #AccountabilityWork #UnlearningPatriarchy #HealthyMasculinity #GenderJustice

#duet with @Abigail Carey #voiceactingchallenge

#duet with @Terence Davis Voice Acting #voiceactingchallenge i messed up the last group of lines but hey, first take, and I love it ❤️

A thing I keep seeing in conversations about gendered violence is the idea that if patriarchy were the cause, most men would be violent. That assumption is flawed. Systems don’t work like switches. They don’t produce identical outcomes in everyone. Patriarchy doesn’t “turn men violent”. It structures probabilities, permissions, and justifications. Most men aren’t violent, and that doesn’t contradict patriarchy at all. It actually fits how systems operate. The real question isn’t “why aren’t all men violent?” It’s “why is violence so disproportionately male, and why does it so often follow patterns of entitlement, control, and punishment toward women?” Individual factors explain who becomes violent: trauma, insecurity, emotional regulation, perceived loss of status. But culture explains how that violence is expressed, who it’s directed at, and how much society excuses or minimises it. Patriarchy doesn’t create anger. It tells men when anger is justified, who it can be taken out on, and when it should be excused. That’s why violence doesn’t need to be universal to be structural. A system doesn’t need to make most people violent to be responsible for violence. It only needs to decide whose aggression is legitimised, whose fear is dismissed, and whose suffering is normalised. That’s where patriarchy operates. Calling this a “men problem” isn’t about saying men are inherently bad. It’s about responsibility. Patriarchy was built by men, benefits men as a group, and is still largely upheld by men, consciously or unconsciously. Men can be harmed by patriarchy and still benefit from it. Those things coexist. But women experience the worst outcomes. That asymmetry matters. So when people say “all men until no men”, I don’t hear “men are the enemy”. I hear “patriarchy until no patriarchy”. If men don’t actively dismantle what advantages them, they will keep reproducing the same violence they claim to oppose. #MensGrowth #AccountabilityWork #UnlearningPatriarchy #HealthyMasculinity #GenderJustice

#duet with @Abigail Carey #voiceactingchallenge

#duet with @Terence Davis Voice Acting #voiceactingchallenge i messed up the last group of lines but hey, first take, and I love it ❤️

A thing I keep seeing in conversations about gendered violence is the idea that if patriarchy were the cause, most men would be violent. That assumption is flawed. Systems don’t work like switches. They don’t produce identical outcomes in everyone. Patriarchy doesn’t “turn men violent”. It structures probabilities, permissions, and justifications. Most men aren’t violent, and that doesn’t contradict patriarchy at all. It actually fits how systems operate. The real question isn’t “why aren’t all men violent?” It’s “why is violence so disproportionately male, and why does it so often follow patterns of entitlement, control, and punishment toward women?” Individual factors explain who becomes violent: trauma, insecurity, emotional regulation, perceived loss of status. But culture explains how that violence is expressed, who it’s directed at, and how much society excuses or minimises it. Patriarchy doesn’t create anger. It tells men when anger is justified, who it can be taken out on, and when it should be excused. That’s why violence doesn’t need to be universal to be structural. A system doesn’t need to make most people violent to be responsible for violence. It only needs to decide whose aggression is legitimised, whose fear is dismissed, and whose suffering is normalised. That’s where patriarchy operates. Calling this a “men problem” isn’t about saying men are inherently bad. It’s about responsibility. Patriarchy was built by men, benefits men as a group, and is still largely upheld by men, consciously or unconsciously. Men can be harmed by patriarchy and still benefit from it. Those things coexist. But women experience the worst outcomes. That asymmetry matters. So when people say “all men until no men”, I don’t hear “men are the enemy”. I hear “patriarchy until no patriarchy”. If men don’t actively dismantle what advantages them, they will keep reproducing the same violence they claim to oppose. #MensGrowth #AccountabilityWork #UnlearningPatriarchy #HealthyMasculinity #GenderJustice

#duet with @Abigail Carey #voiceactingchallenge

#duet with @Terence Davis Voice Acting #voiceactingchallenge i messed up the last group of lines but hey, first take, and I love it ❤️

A thing I keep seeing in conversations about gendered violence is the idea that if patriarchy were the cause, most men would be violent. That assumption is flawed. Systems don’t work like switches. They don’t produce identical outcomes in everyone. Patriarchy doesn’t “turn men violent”. It structures probabilities, permissions, and justifications. Most men aren’t violent, and that doesn’t contradict patriarchy at all. It actually fits how systems operate. The real question isn’t “why aren’t all men violent?” It’s “why is violence so disproportionately male, and why does it so often follow patterns of entitlement, control, and punishment toward women?” Individual factors explain who becomes violent: trauma, insecurity, emotional regulation, perceived loss of status. But culture explains how that violence is expressed, who it’s directed at, and how much society excuses or minimises it. Patriarchy doesn’t create anger. It tells men when anger is justified, who it can be taken out on, and when it should be excused. That’s why violence doesn’t need to be universal to be structural. A system doesn’t need to make most people violent to be responsible for violence. It only needs to decide whose aggression is legitimised, whose fear is dismissed, and whose suffering is normalised. That’s where patriarchy operates. Calling this a “men problem” isn’t about saying men are inherently bad. It’s about responsibility. Patriarchy was built by men, benefits men as a group, and is still largely upheld by men, consciously or unconsciously. Men can be harmed by patriarchy and still benefit from it. Those things coexist. But women experience the worst outcomes. That asymmetry matters. So when people say “all men until no men”, I don’t hear “men are the enemy”. I hear “patriarchy until no patriarchy”. If men don’t actively dismantle what advantages them, they will keep reproducing the same violence they claim to oppose. #MensGrowth #AccountabilityWork #UnlearningPatriarchy #HealthyMasculinity #GenderJustice

#duet with @Abigail Carey #voiceactingchallenge

#duet with @Terence Davis Voice Acting #voiceactingchallenge i messed up the last group of lines but hey, first take, and I love it ❤️

A thing I keep seeing in conversations about gendered violence is the idea that if patriarchy were the cause, most men would be violent. That assumption is flawed. Systems don’t work like switches. They don’t produce identical outcomes in everyone. Patriarchy doesn’t “turn men violent”. It structures probabilities, permissions, and justifications. Most men aren’t violent, and that doesn’t contradict patriarchy at all. It actually fits how systems operate. The real question isn’t “why aren’t all men violent?” It’s “why is violence so disproportionately male, and why does it so often follow patterns of entitlement, control, and punishment toward women?” Individual factors explain who becomes violent: trauma, insecurity, emotional regulation, perceived loss of status. But culture explains how that violence is expressed, who it’s directed at, and how much society excuses or minimises it. Patriarchy doesn’t create anger. It tells men when anger is justified, who it can be taken out on, and when it should be excused. That’s why violence doesn’t need to be universal to be structural. A system doesn’t need to make most people violent to be responsible for violence. It only needs to decide whose aggression is legitimised, whose fear is dismissed, and whose suffering is normalised. That’s where patriarchy operates. Calling this a “men problem” isn’t about saying men are inherently bad. It’s about responsibility. Patriarchy was built by men, benefits men as a group, and is still largely upheld by men, consciously or unconsciously. Men can be harmed by patriarchy and still benefit from it. Those things coexist. But women experience the worst outcomes. That asymmetry matters. So when people say “all men until no men”, I don’t hear “men are the enemy”. I hear “patriarchy until no patriarchy”. If men don’t actively dismantle what advantages them, they will keep reproducing the same violence they claim to oppose. #MensGrowth #AccountabilityWork #UnlearningPatriarchy #HealthyMasculinity #GenderJustice

#duet with @Abigail Carey #voiceactingchallenge

#duet with @Terence Davis Voice Acting #voiceactingchallenge i messed up the last group of lines but hey, first take, and I love it ❤️

A thing I keep seeing in conversations about gendered violence is the idea that if patriarchy were the cause, most men would be violent. That assumption is flawed. Systems don’t work like switches. They don’t produce identical outcomes in everyone. Patriarchy doesn’t “turn men violent”. It structures probabilities, permissions, and justifications. Most men aren’t violent, and that doesn’t contradict patriarchy at all. It actually fits how systems operate. The real question isn’t “why aren’t all men violent?” It’s “why is violence so disproportionately male, and why does it so often follow patterns of entitlement, control, and punishment toward women?” Individual factors explain who becomes violent: trauma, insecurity, emotional regulation, perceived loss of status. But culture explains how that violence is expressed, who it’s directed at, and how much society excuses or minimises it. Patriarchy doesn’t create anger. It tells men when anger is justified, who it can be taken out on, and when it should be excused. That’s why violence doesn’t need to be universal to be structural. A system doesn’t need to make most people violent to be responsible for violence. It only needs to decide whose aggression is legitimised, whose fear is dismissed, and whose suffering is normalised. That’s where patriarchy operates. Calling this a “men problem” isn’t about saying men are inherently bad. It’s about responsibility. Patriarchy was built by men, benefits men as a group, and is still largely upheld by men, consciously or unconsciously. Men can be harmed by patriarchy and still benefit from it. Those things coexist. But women experience the worst outcomes. That asymmetry matters. So when people say “all men until no men”, I don’t hear “men are the enemy”. I hear “patriarchy until no patriarchy”. If men don’t actively dismantle what advantages them, they will keep reproducing the same violence they claim to oppose. #MensGrowth #AccountabilityWork #UnlearningPatriarchy #HealthyMasculinity #GenderJustice

#duet with @Abigail Carey #voiceactingchallenge

#duet with @Terence Davis Voice Acting #voiceactingchallenge i messed up the last group of lines but hey, first take, and I love it ❤️

A thing I keep seeing in conversations about gendered violence is the idea that if patriarchy were the cause, most men would be violent. That assumption is flawed. Systems don’t work like switches. They don’t produce identical outcomes in everyone. Patriarchy doesn’t “turn men violent”. It structures probabilities, permissions, and justifications. Most men aren’t violent, and that doesn’t contradict patriarchy at all. It actually fits how systems operate. The real question isn’t “why aren’t all men violent?” It’s “why is violence so disproportionately male, and why does it so often follow patterns of entitlement, control, and punishment toward women?” Individual factors explain who becomes violent: trauma, insecurity, emotional regulation, perceived loss of status. But culture explains how that violence is expressed, who it’s directed at, and how much society excuses or minimises it. Patriarchy doesn’t create anger. It tells men when anger is justified, who it can be taken out on, and when it should be excused. That’s why violence doesn’t need to be universal to be structural. A system doesn’t need to make most people violent to be responsible for violence. It only needs to decide whose aggression is legitimised, whose fear is dismissed, and whose suffering is normalised. That’s where patriarchy operates. Calling this a “men problem” isn’t about saying men are inherently bad. It’s about responsibility. Patriarchy was built by men, benefits men as a group, and is still largely upheld by men, consciously or unconsciously. Men can be harmed by patriarchy and still benefit from it. Those things coexist. But women experience the worst outcomes. That asymmetry matters. So when people say “all men until no men”, I don’t hear “men are the enemy”. I hear “patriarchy until no patriarchy”. If men don’t actively dismantle what advantages them, they will keep reproducing the same violence they claim to oppose. #MensGrowth #AccountabilityWork #UnlearningPatriarchy #HealthyMasculinity #GenderJustice

#duet with @Abigail Carey #voiceactingchallenge

#duet with @Terence Davis Voice Acting #voiceactingchallenge i messed up the last group of lines but hey, first take, and I love it ❤️

A thing I keep seeing in conversations about gendered violence is the idea that if patriarchy were the cause, most men would be violent. That assumption is flawed. Systems don’t work like switches. They don’t produce identical outcomes in everyone. Patriarchy doesn’t “turn men violent”. It structures probabilities, permissions, and justifications. Most men aren’t violent, and that doesn’t contradict patriarchy at all. It actually fits how systems operate. The real question isn’t “why aren’t all men violent?” It’s “why is violence so disproportionately male, and why does it so often follow patterns of entitlement, control, and punishment toward women?” Individual factors explain who becomes violent: trauma, insecurity, emotional regulation, perceived loss of status. But culture explains how that violence is expressed, who it’s directed at, and how much society excuses or minimises it. Patriarchy doesn’t create anger. It tells men when anger is justified, who it can be taken out on, and when it should be excused. That’s why violence doesn’t need to be universal to be structural. A system doesn’t need to make most people violent to be responsible for violence. It only needs to decide whose aggression is legitimised, whose fear is dismissed, and whose suffering is normalised. That’s where patriarchy operates. Calling this a “men problem” isn’t about saying men are inherently bad. It’s about responsibility. Patriarchy was built by men, benefits men as a group, and is still largely upheld by men, consciously or unconsciously. Men can be harmed by patriarchy and still benefit from it. Those things coexist. But women experience the worst outcomes. That asymmetry matters. So when people say “all men until no men”, I don’t hear “men are the enemy”. I hear “patriarchy until no patriarchy”. If men don’t actively dismantle what advantages them, they will keep reproducing the same violence they claim to oppose. #MensGrowth #AccountabilityWork #UnlearningPatriarchy #HealthyMasculinity #GenderJustice

#duet with @Abigail Carey #voiceactingchallenge

#duet with @Terence Davis Voice Acting #voiceactingchallenge i messed up the last group of lines but hey, first take, and I love it ❤️

A thing I keep seeing in conversations about gendered violence is the idea that if patriarchy were the cause, most men would be violent. That assumption is flawed. Systems don’t work like switches. They don’t produce identical outcomes in everyone. Patriarchy doesn’t “turn men violent”. It structures probabilities, permissions, and justifications. Most men aren’t violent, and that doesn’t contradict patriarchy at all. It actually fits how systems operate. The real question isn’t “why aren’t all men violent?” It’s “why is violence so disproportionately male, and why does it so often follow patterns of entitlement, control, and punishment toward women?” Individual factors explain who becomes violent: trauma, insecurity, emotional regulation, perceived loss of status. But culture explains how that violence is expressed, who it’s directed at, and how much society excuses or minimises it. Patriarchy doesn’t create anger. It tells men when anger is justified, who it can be taken out on, and when it should be excused. That’s why violence doesn’t need to be universal to be structural. A system doesn’t need to make most people violent to be responsible for violence. It only needs to decide whose aggression is legitimised, whose fear is dismissed, and whose suffering is normalised. That’s where patriarchy operates. Calling this a “men problem” isn’t about saying men are inherently bad. It’s about responsibility. Patriarchy was built by men, benefits men as a group, and is still largely upheld by men, consciously or unconsciously. Men can be harmed by patriarchy and still benefit from it. Those things coexist. But women experience the worst outcomes. That asymmetry matters. So when people say “all men until no men”, I don’t hear “men are the enemy”. I hear “patriarchy until no patriarchy”. If men don’t actively dismantle what advantages them, they will keep reproducing the same violence they claim to oppose. #MensGrowth #AccountabilityWork #UnlearningPatriarchy #HealthyMasculinity #GenderJustice

#duet with @Abigail Carey #voiceactingchallenge

#duet with @Terence Davis Voice Acting #voiceactingchallenge i messed up the last group of lines but hey, first take, and I love it ❤️

A thing I keep seeing in conversations about gendered violence is the idea that if patriarchy were the cause, most men would be violent. That assumption is flawed. Systems don’t work like switches. They don’t produce identical outcomes in everyone. Patriarchy doesn’t “turn men violent”. It structures probabilities, permissions, and justifications. Most men aren’t violent, and that doesn’t contradict patriarchy at all. It actually fits how systems operate. The real question isn’t “why aren’t all men violent?” It’s “why is violence so disproportionately male, and why does it so often follow patterns of entitlement, control, and punishment toward women?” Individual factors explain who becomes violent: trauma, insecurity, emotional regulation, perceived loss of status. But culture explains how that violence is expressed, who it’s directed at, and how much society excuses or minimises it. Patriarchy doesn’t create anger. It tells men when anger is justified, who it can be taken out on, and when it should be excused. That’s why violence doesn’t need to be universal to be structural. A system doesn’t need to make most people violent to be responsible for violence. It only needs to decide whose aggression is legitimised, whose fear is dismissed, and whose suffering is normalised. That’s where patriarchy operates. Calling this a “men problem” isn’t about saying men are inherently bad. It’s about responsibility. Patriarchy was built by men, benefits men as a group, and is still largely upheld by men, consciously or unconsciously. Men can be harmed by patriarchy and still benefit from it. Those things coexist. But women experience the worst outcomes. That asymmetry matters. So when people say “all men until no men”, I don’t hear “men are the enemy”. I hear “patriarchy until no patriarchy”. If men don’t actively dismantle what advantages them, they will keep reproducing the same violence they claim to oppose. #MensGrowth #AccountabilityWork #UnlearningPatriarchy #HealthyMasculinity #GenderJustice

#duet with @Abigail Carey #voiceactingchallenge

#duet with @Terence Davis Voice Acting #voiceactingchallenge i messed up the last group of lines but hey, first take, and I love it ❤️

A thing I keep seeing in conversations about gendered violence is the idea that if patriarchy were the cause, most men would be violent. That assumption is flawed. Systems don’t work like switches. They don’t produce identical outcomes in everyone. Patriarchy doesn’t “turn men violent”. It structures probabilities, permissions, and justifications. Most men aren’t violent, and that doesn’t contradict patriarchy at all. It actually fits how systems operate. The real question isn’t “why aren’t all men violent?” It’s “why is violence so disproportionately male, and why does it so often follow patterns of entitlement, control, and punishment toward women?” Individual factors explain who becomes violent: trauma, insecurity, emotional regulation, perceived loss of status. But culture explains how that violence is expressed, who it’s directed at, and how much society excuses or minimises it. Patriarchy doesn’t create anger. It tells men when anger is justified, who it can be taken out on, and when it should be excused. That’s why violence doesn’t need to be universal to be structural. A system doesn’t need to make most people violent to be responsible for violence. It only needs to decide whose aggression is legitimised, whose fear is dismissed, and whose suffering is normalised. That’s where patriarchy operates. Calling this a “men problem” isn’t about saying men are inherently bad. It’s about responsibility. Patriarchy was built by men, benefits men as a group, and is still largely upheld by men, consciously or unconsciously. Men can be harmed by patriarchy and still benefit from it. Those things coexist. But women experience the worst outcomes. That asymmetry matters. So when people say “all men until no men”, I don’t hear “men are the enemy”. I hear “patriarchy until no patriarchy”. If men don’t actively dismantle what advantages them, they will keep reproducing the same violence they claim to oppose. #MensGrowth #AccountabilityWork #UnlearningPatriarchy #HealthyMasculinity #GenderJustice

#duet with @Abigail Carey #voiceactingchallenge

#duet with @Terence Davis Voice Acting #voiceactingchallenge i messed up the last group of lines but hey, first take, and I love it ❤️

A thing I keep seeing in conversations about gendered violence is the idea that if patriarchy were the cause, most men would be violent. That assumption is flawed. Systems don’t work like switches. They don’t produce identical outcomes in everyone. Patriarchy doesn’t “turn men violent”. It structures probabilities, permissions, and justifications. Most men aren’t violent, and that doesn’t contradict patriarchy at all. It actually fits how systems operate. The real question isn’t “why aren’t all men violent?” It’s “why is violence so disproportionately male, and why does it so often follow patterns of entitlement, control, and punishment toward women?” Individual factors explain who becomes violent: trauma, insecurity, emotional regulation, perceived loss of status. But culture explains how that violence is expressed, who it’s directed at, and how much society excuses or minimises it. Patriarchy doesn’t create anger. It tells men when anger is justified, who it can be taken out on, and when it should be excused. That’s why violence doesn’t need to be universal to be structural. A system doesn’t need to make most people violent to be responsible for violence. It only needs to decide whose aggression is legitimised, whose fear is dismissed, and whose suffering is normalised. That’s where patriarchy operates. Calling this a “men problem” isn’t about saying men are inherently bad. It’s about responsibility. Patriarchy was built by men, benefits men as a group, and is still largely upheld by men, consciously or unconsciously. Men can be harmed by patriarchy and still benefit from it. Those things coexist. But women experience the worst outcomes. That asymmetry matters. So when people say “all men until no men”, I don’t hear “men are the enemy”. I hear “patriarchy until no patriarchy”. If men don’t actively dismantle what advantages them, they will keep reproducing the same violence they claim to oppose. #MensGrowth #AccountabilityWork #UnlearningPatriarchy #HealthyMasculinity #GenderJustice

#duet with @Abigail Carey #voiceactingchallenge

#duet with @Terence Davis Voice Acting #voiceactingchallenge i messed up the last group of lines but hey, first take, and I love it ❤️