[ Refering to Lundy Bancroft's "Why Does He Do That?", a book about tactics used by male abusers ]

lundy bancroft's book is brilliant, but it understandably doesn't explain why in a more global, all-encompassing, elegant sense. his book, as it should have, still left the nebulous possibility of "good men". a proper framework should explain why a value judgment like this cannot apply, that there's only a man that finds it useful or has the capacity to be abusive, and a man that doesn't.

--

their nature innately biases them towards perceiving prosociality/kindness as deference/submission. in a male mind, there's no need to be nice unless you have to be, and that can only happen because you're too weak to just take what you want. no matter how many phony layers of civilization and decorum they slap on top of this, even to the point of losing their own acute awareness of it, it still shines as bright as day and is most noticeable in pre-socialized males (toddler to elementary school age). they absolutely hate dealing with this between themselves of course, but they don't have the capacity to change even for their own sake - let alone women's. for a male, might is right.

ironically, by being staunch blank slatists feminists have lost their only ability to fashion males into the most convincing facsimile of a "good person" possible - removing any and all material power they hold over women would give them a selfish incentive to be nice (display submission).