Posted on 02/02/2026 4:33:46 AM PST by MtnClimber
When we talk about political violence, we almost always assume that its perpetrators are young men. That makes sense: men are statistically more likely to engage in physical aggression and get arrested for violent crimes at higher rates. At the same time, many are dealing with rising unemployment, declining educational achievement, and growing social disengagement. Given all that, researchers may reasonably assume that young men are driving greater tolerance for political violence.
New data complicate that assumption. A recent survey by the Network Contagion Research Institute at Rutgers found that under certain conditions, women were more likely than men to express support for political violence. The findings were so counter to the prevailing narrative that they surprised even the researchers.
It makes sense, though, when you start to recognize where these women’s impulses come from. The rise of what I call “punitive femininity” is downstream of the toxic political culture online, a culture that is transforming the sex long viewed as more restrained and less prone to violence.
To investigate toleration of political violence, NCRI use data from a survey of 1,055 respondents, weighted to be representative across sex, age, race/ethnicity, and education. The survey asked participants whether they saw any justification for the targeted murder of President Donald Trump and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani. It recorded responses on a seven-point scale ranging from zero (“completely unjustified”) to six (“highly justified”).
Among left-of-center respondents, 67 percent expressed at least some justification for the murder of Trump, an 11-point increase over NCRI’s earlier 2025 study. Fifty-four percent of right-of-center respondents expressed some degree of justification for murdering Mamdani.
Strikingly, justification for killing Trump and justification for killing Mamdani were strongly correlated. This implies that support for political murder is not merely partisan but reflects a generalized tolerance for political violence.
The most unexpected result: women were significantly more likely than men to endorse such violence. Female respondents were approximately 21 percent more likely than males to express some justification for murdering Mamdani and nearly 15 percent more likely to justify murdering Trump.
Both differences were statistically significant. These effects persisted even after controlling for age and other variables.
This disparity isn’t obviously the result of biological sex differences or even political polarization. Rather, it reflects the rise of a distinct and disturbing mindset.
The strongest predictors of tolerance for violence in NCRI’s data were heavy social media use and a sense that America is in a state of terminal decline. The supporters of violence in the survey aren’t traditional extremists. Rather, they seem motivated by the despair, nihilism, and moral confusion online.
For whatever reason, women seem uniquely at risk for infection by this mindset. Over the past decade, women—especially younger women—have become more politically and affectively polarized in their political judgments. Political disagreement is increasingly treated as a serious moral offense rather than a simple difference of opinion. When you see the world that way, punishing someone for holding different views becomes a moral good.
I think of this mindset as “punitive femininity.” By punitive femininity, I do not mean to invoke notions of hostility, cruelty, or aggression in the conventional sense. I mean the transformation of moral concern into a license to act punitively. Adoption of this attitude is fueled by a combination of raw anger, emotional manipulation, and an exaggerated sense of moral certainty.
Social media plays a central role in this transformation. Modern platforms reward outrage, absolutism, and performative aggression. They flatten moral complexity, elevating and even glorifying condemnation.
This lens helps make sense of some of the strangest corners of the internet. Consider the online reaction to Luigi Mangione. After his arrest for the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson, some treated Mangione not as a killer, but as a celebrity. They even explicitly sexualized him, describing him as attractive, charismatic, and even romantic.
When violence is paired with attraction, it stops being judged on moral terms. Instead of asking whether an action is wrong, people start asking whether it feels meaningful, expressive, or somehow justified.
Women aren’t uniquely prone to this dynamic. But they do disproportionately occupy and get their news from the digital spaces where this kind of aestheticization spreads fastest.
Historically, women have played a stabilizing role in moral and civic life. Across cultures, they score higher on measures of empathy, care, and harm avoidance.
When women become less likely to demonstrate these virtues, it doesn’t mean they’ve suddenly transformed. It means the moral climate itself has deteriorated. Social media is breaking down basic norms of restraint, and that breakdown is showing up in groups once closely associated with moral caution and care.
If we care about social stability and the well-being of the next generation, we need to change course. We must stop rewarding moral outrage—especially when it means support for violence.
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
I have also seen where women assault men more often than men assault women. It just rarely gets reported.
My theory is that women are much more in need of affirmation than men. The reason why they are more prone to supporting violence by government is because they get affirmed by those in power when they do that.
This is a small factoid that older freepers might remember.
Do you guys remember in your teens when the girls seemed fearless and provoking in the face of situations you were confronting and dealing with, knowing that you and the other guy (or guys) would actually be doing the fighting while she was a spectator?
I don’t know if this still happens but I wouldn’t be surprised that it still does in rough neighborhoods.
“Fifty-four percent of right-of-center respondents expressed some degree of justification for murdering Mamdani.“
Oh cut the shit. I’ve never heard anyone say any such thing about Mamdani, who I might add no one has ever tried to kill on live TV. The vast majority either like Mamdani or think he’s going to give it to NY good and hard.
“Fifty-four percent of right-of-center respondents expressed some degree of justification for murdering Mamdani.”
I doubt this. You rarely hear this type of thing from the Right.
I am a female but I have to agree that women are becoming nuttier. The farther left they go, the more arrogant and kooky.
I think this happens when they try to make a contest between men and women out of everything.
Women have lost the concept of being women in traditional women’s roles.
Girls just wanna have fun...
Being a spectator in a participatory sport is highly stimulating to the female psyche. Something to do with the basic instinct for selection of the potential mate.
Even though there may never be an actual mating.
Frigid, angry, lonely….
Color me shocked 😳
Decades of being lied to by the feminist movement, abortions (even if they don’t admit it their subconscious knows they murdered their child(ren), blaming everyone else but themselves for their anger, and hatred….
Yup shocked that they are like this
let’s you and him fight ...
Women can be manipulated by using emotion and buzz words. Give it to the Democrats—They have successfully managed to have there Hitler-Trump cartoon accepted by many on the left. They did this to Nixon as well with great success and they tried it with Reagan but with little success.
Women have a mean streak in them that can be turned on with the right “cause” (like abortion-Education—For the Children). They are a dependable voting block as Blacks once were (not so much today)—Just say “They goin’ put youall back in chaines!” and they would lockstep vote Democrat.
There are quite a few videos online of such delusional women stepping into a boxing ring and getting just a quick jab of the glove of reality to awaken them. You can see the look on their face when they realize that they can get hit and it actually hurts.
When even a UFC trained fighter such as Juliana Pena believed she can fight a man, it shows just how delusional women are when it comes to violence. Too many women have stupidly believed television and movies where a woman beats up not one man but several muscle-bound fighters.
Here's a link to a video short of Julian Pena describing a fight (already a UFC fighter at the time) she picked with a cook at a restaurant she worked as a server at. It took her three punches to accept reality.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/2CkGVB4XBz8
...my stupidity thinking that I could beat a man. I went into the back alley while I was serving and I fought the line cook going at each other for a long time. A long story.
He dropped me three times. I got dropped. I popped right back up. I went at him again. He dropped me again. I had my eyes swollen shut for three days and 11 stitches in my eye. I thought that I could fight a man.
I don't have any ego to be like, I could beat a man. Learned my lesson. I don't want anything to do with fighting dudes.
I actually was in my head of being like, No, I'm a pro fighter. I can fight this guy and I'm gonna beat him. Juliana, he's 6'3. You're 5'3. Like, take that into account, you know, or like try to like bob and weave your way in there to like get him down. All I got to do is get in close and take him down and then I'll choke him. Couldn't even do that because the second that I tried to enter, I was getting dropped.
I got fired and he got to keep his job. There was a guy that was watching the whole time and he didn't even stop it..."
As I like to say—Just wait for the Big War. Not a police action but a real war against a real enemy not some 3rd world state but a collection of industrial powers. You can see the signs, its coming. This year or a dozen years from now—but its coming. USA and NATO vs Russia/China/North Korea and some other states (India,South Africa, Brazil?) It will be a naval way fought in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. If a Democrat is in the White House Heaven Help us. Then women will be women and men will be men. If we lose—we will get our revenge as American Liberal women become “war brides” to victorious Russian men.
Women by nature are a herd group. They are like sheep to slaughter.
Bkmk
Of course when they don’t have to do it.
Young liberal women are the most self-absorbed, narcissistic, and self-righteous people I’ve ever experienced. They think with their feelings, believe anything that “feels right” and have zero ability to think things through to a logical end.
They are extremely dangerous and callous. While not able to inflict physical violence like men, they just find other avenues to release their frustrations.
If that means supporting the murder of an “evil” person they don’t like, fine with them. This doesn’t surprise me at all, the evidence provided when Charlie Kirk was murdered, calling it a “good” thing.
There’s nothing more dangerous to western society than these women.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.