The myth is that leftist violence is a unique and significant manifestation of political violence in the west.
It is, both of those. Neither right nor left wing terror currently reach the large scale murderousness of Islamic terror, but in terms of vandalism and assault they are significant. You can go check interpol data, and you'll find out they are. But you'd have to be purposefully blind after what happened in Hamburg to think it isn't. As I pointed out, an important Dutch political figure, Pim Fortuyn, was assassinated by a leftist. So I wouldn't deem leftist violence 'insignificant'.
This is you again dismissing a 100% factual statement because of its inconvenience to your rhetoric/viewpoint.
There is nothing factual about it. Your claim is 'it is not leftism because it is related to the state', when clearly the safe space snowflake pro censorship ideology is a leftist ideology that wants to protect 'victims', 'the disadvantaged', and 'the oppressed' through censorship from opinions that might be 'hurtful', or according to them 'violence'. But this is another of the continuing no true Scotsman fallacies you make, or 'no true leftism fallacy'.
With the state intact, it's merely regime change within an existing order and no longer leftist in nature.
Leftism exists on a spectrum. Within the context of the state and capitalism there are still movements that are more leftist than others. So this idea that if it is related to a statist and capitalist political structure, then it isn't leftism, is just not true. But it's the 'no true leftism' fallacy once more. 'Only a stateless genderless radical egalitarian utopia is leftist'. Well, no, that doesn't exist and never will, because it is at odds with many important innate human tendencies.
You’ve condemned the feminist tendency to suggest that men’s issues have solutions rooted feminism/women’s issues. Yet here you are constantly deflecting the focus to issues within feminism as if we cannot address men’s rights without fixing toxic feminism first.
If you put it like that, it would almost seem like I'm contradicting myself, but I'm not, haha. There is no contradiction at all between saying we can't understand men's issues through the current paradigm of feminist ideas, and that we have to lessen the influence of such misguided feminist ideas.
For ages, religious institutions have imposed moronic restrictions on who we can have sex with, when we can have sex with them (premarital rules), how we have sex with them (prohibited acts), why we have sex (restrict casual sex + banning birth control + banning abortion). If anything, they gave radical feminists the playbook on how to control male access to the female body. The church specializes in Anti-Access and Area Denial when it comes to sex.
What is interesting is how the current increasing tendency on campuses for authorities to want to control the sexual habits of young people has been considered a new Victorianism, where feminism in stead of being in favor of increasing sexual liberation and autonomy for women, is for treating women as unautonomous victims who need to be protected by authorities and guardians at all times. This analysis coming from me might sound like male chauvinism, but there are feminists increasingly making this point. It's an interesting development where certain 'feminist' practices are increasingly authoritarian, and decreasingly liberal.
Religious institutions are just one example I have chosen since you seem to dislike criticism of the state
The issue is that 'criticism of the state' is vapid contrarianism as long as there is no successful or viable alternative to statism. That's why I dislike it.
As you've accurately hinted at earlier with reference to female "societal beauty standards", these 'rights' issues that make both men and women miserable feed on insecurity around one's femininity or masculinity.
The fact that certain societal norms are able to make people insecure, doesn't mean we should coercively surpress them. 'Societal beauty standards', and norms for what it means to be masculine can be very harsh, but they weren't consciously constructed, and therefore we can't consciously surpress them without simultaneously surpressing natural human tendencies. Human beings make harsh judgements about one another when it comes to physical appearance or behaviour, but those judgements are not arbitrary constructs manufactured to oppress those who fail to meet them. They are part of natural innate tendencies of people that adapt to social context.
or as MRAs call it, the 'inner game'.
'Inner game' is a PUA term for correcting your insecurity and self image, in stead of just correcting the success of your behaviour by purely outwardly pretending to be confident.
Rampant (psychological) insecurity is incredibly profitable because it allows you to sell people back what they already have. More importantly, it makes people easier to control by overstating the social value of essentially rent-seeking institutions whether they be corporate or not.
I'd agree with you that some institutions parasitically profit from the insecurities of people. But ultimately, people are also responsible for whether they allow themselves to be insecure.
The goal is to minimize senseless slaughter on a mass scale by continuing to socially evolve. People will still commit atrocities here and there.
Sure, but I do see a tendency for society to adapt to protect itself from the most cynical and evil possible terror, which from a leftist perspective on the surface seems like the arbitrary enforcement of authority and control. Human beings naturally have the intention to protect themselves from the worst possible behaviour by others.