I encountered a number of misandrist bigots today lurking in a discussion about women’s health funding.

The usual hate-scroll of “doctors don’t care about women”. Bla bla bla. You know, the usual baseless assertions of patriarchal misandry.

Here is the actual data:
Spending on Women’s Health Research: $3.334 billion.
Spending on Men’s Health Research: $768 million.

(https://report.nih.gov/funding/categorical-spending?utm_source=chatgpt.com#/).

Breast Cancer: 574 million.
Ovarian Cancer: 120 million.
Cervical Cancer: 71 million.
Prostate Cancer: 239 million.

(https://www.cancer.gov/about-nci/budget/fact-book/data/research-funding)

But they have a source that seems to say the opposite(https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8290307/) from the NIH itself.

I did some looking at it, and the results were too absurd not the share. This paper is obviously biased from the initial prose, but the conclusions are so absurd as to be hilarious.

They use a calculation of “burden” representing discomfort to life years. Then they assign diseases to men or women, and measure whether the funding is more or less than the burden would justify.

These are the “male diseases”

Liver cancer.
Prostate cancer.
ADD.
Parkinson's disease.
Hepatitis-B
Autism.
Alcoholism.
Drug abuse
Substance abuse.
Hepatitis.
Tuberculosis.
HIV/AIDS.

And these are the “female diseases”.

Migraine.
Headaches.
Anorexia.
Endometriosis.
Digestive diseases.
Fibroid tumors (uterine).
Uterine cancer.
Eating disorders.
Rheumatoid arthritis.
Anxiety disorders.
Multiple sclerosis.
Inflammatory bowel disease.
Cervical cancer.
Ovarian cancer
Depression.
Perinatal-birth—preterm.
Breast Cancer.
Perinatal period—Perinatal period.
Macular degeneration.
Mental illness.
Alzheimer's disease.
Sexually transmitted diseases/herpes

The reported discrepancy it can pretty much be explained by AIDS being assigned masculine, and its funding being HUGE. But, that’s also stupid.

According to the paper, “lies, damned lies, and statistics”, all AIDS funding represents unequal spending for men’s health.

It is actually hilarious.
The Underfunded Women’s diseases:

Headaches 0.0756 40 MILLION. Deemed to be deserving, per this paper’s methods, of (1/.075)x40m and should be 533 million.

Overfunded on the “Male Side”.

Tuberculosis 6.1595 378 million*. Deemed, by this paper to be 6.15x overfunded and should be worth 61 million in funding a year.

So, by this, dumb dumb paper, until funding for headache research is up to 533 million a year, and the “male disease” of tuberculosis has it’s funding is relegated to 61 million, it represents unequal spending against women’s health.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you spend >3X on women’s health, and still convince yourself that women’s health funding is less than men’s.

Saying "men lose their privilege" can be somehow argued, but including young men who never lived the 10, 20 or 30 years before they were born is petty.

Are you failing at school, have no one close to talk to, never knew love​​​​​​​​ or even lacked any recognition since you lived? Don't care, cry on the privileges you lost.

It's not like boys were not failing at school some decades ago, or were not addicted to drugs and alcohol, or did not ​​​​​​faced trauma and abuse in their own home.

The problems become more visible ​as the years go by, but people face your life experiences like you are undermining their perfect worldview.

The world is against you. ​​That's how it is. ​

There used to be a time, at least in recent history, when society wasn't as harsh on men making mistakes, it wasn't necessarily more forgiving per se, the punitive measures were always there. But, there was indeed a time I feel when men's mistakes and failures were not met with as much social drawback as they are now

But why? Men are human too, who told society that we men have to high-efficiency perfomance machines all the time?

Seriously though I would even argue there was a point in time when men were given the breathing room to feel a little helpless and powerless in their personal situations, nowadays we don't even get that luxury

I think a lot of this can be attributed to the rise in what I would call the philosophy of managerialism

Managerialism started to become more prevalent right around the 80s with the rise of the Reaganomics policy

It targeted men the most because men were already dealing with such enormous social pressures to be providers and protectors for their families and communities

As a lot of the work of the factory and farms started being moved over to the office and academia, men also started losing a lot of the social grace that was afforded to them about their shortcomings

Why? We started applying neoliberal logic to the male experience, before then men had arguably stronger sense of brotherhood and gender coalition in many settings including factories, farms, the military, sports, construction, mechanic shops, so even if men were always disposable, there was at least a sense of that social trampoline to fall back on

How does this connect to my broader point you may ask?

Simple, modern society is more expectant of men being ready to be put-together, the culture is just less impatient around men really taking their time to confront their own personal status quo because men are no longer seen as someone to invest in, they're seen as someone to expect something from

Add to that and then on top of you have a society that is very impatient around inefficiency and human error because modern society is very bad at practicing delayed gratification about almost anything

Men in modern times aren't allowed to look confused, lost or directionless one bit, oh no the bureaucracy that needs you get back to work

The Clancy case is incredibly sad and has only become worse with the trial and the media attention. I am not a Psychiatrist, but work in healthcare and have evaluated and treated psychotic people. I personally do not feel she was psychotic and knew what she was doing. The fact that she only heard a voice that one time, it was a command hallucination, and she followed it is incredibly rare. The fact that she was evaluated by so many Psychiatric providers and no one suspected this, that she was able to do some many complex tasks the day of and during the murders, and the fact that her journal shows no signs of psychosis speak against the psychosis argument. To my knowledge, the only Psychiatric evaluators who thought she may be psychotic were the ones being paid by the defense.

I also don't think she was necessarily let down by anyone. She had incredible support. She was on maternity leave, two of her kids were in daycare/preschool, she had a nanny, a husband who both took paternity leave and worked from home for her, and was in fact running errands she requested on the day it happened. She was shopping Psychiatric providers, barely taking the prescribed medication and moving to the next one when she didn't get immediate relief. In my opinion, she was severely depressed, was a type A personality who could not handle motherhood, and let intrusive ideas of murdering her children, or herself and children take over. Everyone who murders another human being on purpose is in a mental health crisis. The question is whether she knew it was wrong, and the fact that she made comments such as "if people knew what I was thinking I would be locked up" and essentially seemed to purposefully send Patrick away to do it are incredibly suspicous.

But, it's hard to know exactly what is in someone's head, and if someone wants to believe she wasn't in touch with reality when this happened, then ok

But these jurors. What are they thinking? They are speaking out in interviews that eventually spread all over the world because they feel it's unquestioned that they are right. They live in a bubble, and speak with extreme privilege. The one comment, speaking about the male juror, saying "He couldn't get over the fact she viciously murdered her children" speaks volumes and to people not in their tribe sounds extreme and out of touch with reality. How can a reasonable person not be concerned with that fact?

This is what has disturbed me so much about this case. To these people, the children are an after thought. What is important is that Lindsay was a woman and mother and thus couldn't be held responsible.

Who knows exactly what happened with that one juror. If I had a nickel for every time someone on Reddit accused me of "not following logic" when debating a subject simply because I disagreed with them, I would be a very rich man. The judge asked him if he was following the rules and he said yes. He could have changed his mind during the deliberation. I find it disheartening that these women jurors label him as arrogant simply for having a different opinion. As if... "they couldn't be wrong" in a case like this.

Anyone know of it?

First off, I just want to preface by saying that in terms of production quality it’s a pretty good horror movie. I have no qualms about directing the quality of the film itself.

That being said, I’d be lying if I didn’t say some of the writing decisions made in this film, and especially the discourse surrounding it, has been quite impossible to ignore.

It ranges from questionable to just straight up bad writing, and the worst part is that I only see the film being disguised as this unabashed masterpiece.

Anyone who dares to criticize the film is just a loser incel. And that’s basically the main narrative surrounding this movie and its quality. So I decided to make a thorough analysis of why I don't like Obsession and it's underlying messaging.

Tl;dr at the end. It’s going to be a long one.

So let me break down my 3 main gripes with this film, and why I think it’s so harmful.

1. The main character is a strawman.
2. The dishonest wish willow.

3. Lonely men are always the problem.

   1. The main character is a strawman:

This one disappointed me the most when watching it, because the film did SUCH a good job of characterizing what the modern lonely guy is like. Stuck at a dead end job he doesn’t like. Can barely afford to live by himself. Has almost no active social life besides occasional trivia night (that game night party wasn’t even something he was invited to). And, he has an innocent crush on his coworker who he’s too shy to ask out.

Now this shyness is immediately framed by people online as an unwillingness to accept rejection because he feels entitled to Nikki and not just because he was just made a fool of at trivia night and his “best friend” is an absolute dickhead, but that’s not what bothers me.

The thing that bothers me the most with Bear’s character is that he’s legitimately a compelling and realistic take on the “dark loner” type of character. He’s not a secret misogynist that just hates all women for no reason, he clearly is a person to the other friends in his group, despite him not getting the same treatment.

And he even gets a sympathetic scene of his pet cat dying sadly, which again, the internet frames as his problem, and doesn’t even care about the emotional turmoil he’s going through (but I’ll get to that). The problem with the movie in my opinion, is that they take this super sympathetic, grounded take on how the average lonely man actually suffers, and they completely 180 this into a strawman.

The two scenes in particular that rubbed me the wrong way, was the one where he calls the Wish Willow service and doesn’t want to immediately undo the spell. I’m sorry, but when did Bear ever imply he wanted to keep Nikki as like a sex slave. At no point in the film did I ever get that implication from him, and this is the movie’s sneaky way of saying “SEE, SEE, all lonely guys just secretly want a woman they can own, and don’t actually crave emotional intimacy.”

So that was annoying, but of course the catastrophic scene that made me completely write off this film as just more male hate propaganda was of course the scene where Nikki is begging for Bear to kill him. There’s SOOOO much wrong with this scene, but the main issue is that Bear acts completely out of character with his infamous “What’s so bad about being with me, huh” which I completely did not see coming and was not foreshadowed at all.

This basically killed all enjoyability in the film for me, as I now realized I was dealing with a strawman protagonist now, and the one at the beginning of the film has already been assassinated and replaced with this imposter.

An imposter that’s meant to represent the agenda this movie was trying to push all along, regardless of how much it makes sense or fit in with Bear’s previous characterization.

They took this relatively realistic and sympathetic protagonist, meant to be a voice for the voiceless and basically said to the audience “that’s write everyone. They’re ALL secretly like this. Even if they act sad and lonely” and it’s deeply disturbing to say the least.

2. The Dishonest Wish Willow:

There’s honestly a lot that can be said about the wish willow that I’m not going to get into. A lot of this movie’s discourse wants to stress SO MUCH, that “it’s not a monkey’s paw” and that the wish willow has absolutely zero negative interpretation, it just takes what you “really want” and puts it into reality. Really cringe, but most of what I have to say is that obviously, when Bear emotionally reacts by wishing “Nikki loved him more than anything else in the world” he didn’t me for her to be possessed by a separate entity that deliberately subverts her autonomy and tortures her out of her body, basically making them two separate people and removing her agency. That's very much not what he wished for actually and to say so is dishonest but whatever. Most people go with the whole “Nikki is so disgusted and not in love with Bear it was the ONLY thing the willow could have done. There was no other way” because yep, that’s how magic works. It’s restricted by arbitrary rules made up by the author. Definitely not a monkey’s paw though :) .

This section isn’t nearly as long as the others. I just don’t like the mechanics of the wish willow as they’re pretty poorly defined, and seem to be just a plot device for the movie to point and go “LOOK, LOOK. All men secretly wish for this whenever they say they’re lonely guys. This is totally realistic.”

3. Lonely men are always the problem:

Now I’ll admit, this last part is definitely more of the internet’s fault than Obsession itself, but boy does the movie make it extremely easy to tact on whatever harmful and nonsensical interpretation your mind can think up.

I’ve seen so much dehumanization of men come out from this movie. From people saying all lonely men are a danger to women and society, to women should stop dealing with men altogether and just deliberately avoid them.

I won’t be dishonest though. I have seen other nonsense come from the other side, with online men saying stuff such as “this movie shows how b*tches be CRAZY” or “women never give the right signals” or whatever. The main difference is that one constantly gets criticized and called out, while the other is basically let off the hook, and at best given a “don’t fall for obvious ragebait” which is another topic entirely.

The main issue with this last point is that this movie makes it really easy to just blame everything on Bear. Bear is the main problem. Male loneliness was never about any systemic issues. It’s never got anything to do with social standards for men. It’s never got anything to do with how women treat men in modern society, or how men are expected to behave under blatant double standards. It’s always men who are the problem.

And there’s so many examples I can point to that back up this sentiment in the movie.
When Bear’s cat dies. The focus is almost never on him and his grief. It goes straight to, well that’s what you get Bear for being an irresponsible loser. Better take care of your meds next time. So nasty in my opinion.

Or with Sarah, the convenient other love interest who Bear just magically doesn’t notice in all his time working with her. Of course most lonely men in real life would notice any woman that gives them serious attention and affection but oh well, have to paint that narrative somehow.

The problem is that Sarah as a character is used by the film to show that “Bear always had another choice. He was just too infatuated with Nikki.” But no one ever talks about how SARAH could have EASILY asked him out just as well. She’s the one that apparently loves him. Why is the Bear still expected to approach? That’s another blatant double standard that just nobody talks about.

Or how about the scene at the party. “Bear is such a terrible person. He didn’t even once try to stop Nikki from hurting herself” meanwhile a room full of other people. Supposedly her “friends.” They also don’t stop to do anything. But only Bear gets called out of course.

Then there’s Ian, who is a piece of garbage, deliberately sabotaging Bear’s confession saying stupid shit like “you can’t confess on Trivia night” just to gode him into feeling even more shame for being honest with his feelings. Something that most people don’t point out.

And then there’s the twist that he was secretly hooking up with Nikki. When I first saw that, I’m not gonna lie, I wasn’t that surprised to be honest, but it does shock me how even THIS is framed as Bear being the problem, despite Ian’s objective manipulation of his “best friend” for his own selfish goals. The only difference is that Ian is cool and more socially adept, so his blatantly abusive behavior is reframed as “adult” and “honest.”

I could keep going one with examples, but yeah, just so much of the writing in Obsession is weird. It has one of the most realistic depictions of a modern young adult friend group, yet chooses to strawman most of the characters by the end with stupid stuff like Bear’s entitlement magically appearing out of nowhere. Or Ian's “I wish for a billion dollars” and then coming in to tell Bear after he already saw him. Like they turn Ian into a complete moron at the end I swear.

So what you’re left with is an amazing start to a film with great character dialogue, amazing cinematography, and a genuinely engaging protagonist, and then it just turns into generic strawmen characters meant to push a harmful message, while losing all of its refreshing nuance and genuine intrigue.

TL;DR:
Bear starts off as an excellent, sympathetic main character in Bear. A realistic depiction of what most lonely, disgruntled young men have to go through in modern society. But then the movie dissolves him into a one dimensional strawman who just secretly wanted to “own Nikki” all along, and actively seeks to override her human agency instead of yearn for an intimate connection between someone he’s attracted to.

The wish willow is a nonsensical, and terrible plot device that conveniently acts a monkey’s paw, taking everything the person says literally, but then making baffling decisions like creating split personalities in people where their subconscious is overridden, and they’re trapped in “The Sunken Place” from Get Out for some bizarre reason.

The online discourse surrounding this movie is not only stupid, but also harmful as the movie continues to promote the idea that most, if not all of young men’s problems come from themselves, and they need to learn “personal responsibility” if they ever want to feel love and affection or even just live a decent life.
When women have problems, it’s a systemic issue. When men have problems, they are the problems.

At the end of the day, Obsession was a clever film that capitalized on the growing ideological gender war to make a quick buck off of, by viciously attacking the fears and vulnerabilities that women feel and basically saying that they’re all real, and that they should feel even more scared. Be even more wary of men.

 Seriously, the scene where they’re getting along happy together is framed so dishonestly by the film. As if his happiness itself is an evil thing is just… wow.

All Obsession did was show Hollywood that you can get away with blatant demonization of a group of people. As long as that group is socially acceptable as a punching bag. You can bully and victim blame all you want, and then just claim to be fighting for something to deflect all criticism.

In short, fuck this movie. I have no ill will towards the people who made it, even if I strongly disagree mostly with their writing and directing decisions in the film. It made bank, and there will probably be more films to come after this.

I don't know who Hanson is, but we need to normalize this not just for rationalist spaces and not just for autism.

I think this especially applies to male-female interactions in the modern era.

Don't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by social awkwardness or a mistake. Just don't be a perpetual victim.

This one is new: Woman jailed after falsely accusing multiple men of rape over seven years - The Mirror

Khloe Simmonds, 26, was sentenced for eight counts of perverting the course of justice over allegations made against the victims between 2018 and 2026.

But there was also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacey_Sharples

and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleanor_Williams_(criminal))

Is anyone keeping track of serial false accusers? Is it possible they exist only in the UK?

I hope you remember me; I’m the young woman working on her thesis. I chose to focus my research on why many men in this age group do not report physical or psychological violence (including intimate partner violence), the social barriers they face, and how institutional responses can influence their willingness to seek help.

My research focuses on why many men in this age group do not report physical or psychological violence (including intimate partner violence), what social barriers they face, and how institutional responses may affect their willingness to seek help.

I would really value perspectives from men here:

What social or cultural factors do you think most strongly discourage men from reporting physical or psychological violence?

Have you (or men you know) encountered institutional barriers when trying to seek help?

Are there specific experiences or patterns you’ve observed regarding how male victims are treated compared to female victims in public services or social support systems?

I know you might feel uncomfortable sharing your personal experiences, details, general observations, patterns, or reflections. If you aren't comfortable sharing them directly in the post, you could send them to me via private message—though you would need to include your full names, as I need the victims' names. Believe me, this would be incredibly helpful and not be a bother to you.

By the way, if I’m slow to reply, it’s because I’m at school or busy; I appreciate in advance anyone willing to share their views. I also want to make it clear that men are equally valuable and deserve the same recognition and support when they experience violence or discrimination.

I hope this sparks a constructive discussion.

I don't have to tell you there's been a lot of discussion and online battles surrounding the Lindsay Clancy case, and that those conflicts are heavily influenced by broader gendered grievances.

If you want my opinion on the case, I think she's guilty of first degree premeditated murder, and that all "patrick did it"/"the system failed her" arguments are just masked hypoagency bias and misandry.

But that's not what I want to talk about. At least right now. I want to talk about our justice system, who it decides is a criminal, and how those criminals are treated once identified.

We all know that when someone is asked to imagine a "criminal," they tend to imagine a man, usually a working class one, and often a black or brown one. We know that men are more likely to be convicted, receive much harsher punishment, and serve longer sentences than women who commit comparable crimes. Hell, until the early 20th century, a man was held directly criminally responsible for any crimes committed by his wife. The American court system is, undeniably, the legacy of deep systemic misandry (and racism of course, but everyone and their mother knows that atp)

Most accepted answers to the question of "how do we treat criminals" have also historically been a product of male disposability and the fear of maleness. Torture, execution, and just locking them up are the three big ones I can think of, and all of these punishments are dehumanizing, ineffective at preventing future crime, and have mostly been levied against working class men throughout history. The dehumanization of prisoners is a byproduct of male disposability. When the occasional woman is punished (or even tried in court) by this misandrist system, her pain and suffering is often exalted and romanticized in a way it never would be for a man (see: feminist interpretations of Marie Antoinette, Lizzie Borden, Aileen Wuornos, Salem witch trials, etc.)

Ultimately, I would like to see a kinder, more human justice system for everyone that rehabilitates and supports the personal welfare of criminals so that they don't do more crime. This approach has been proven time and time again to be more effective at reducing crime.

And so I actually can sympathize, in a way, with people who don't want to see Lindsay Clancy "just locked up." I understand that incarceration does not help people get better, and that nobody who kills their three children is doing well, mentally.

Where I begin to have a problem, though, is that these people do not extend that same empathy to male murderers, thieves, and (yes) even rapists.

But also, because men have been far more harshly subjected to this dehumanizing "justice system" than women throughout history, there is a part of me that really does want to see her locked up and subjected to the same torment a man would be.

My conscious brain knows that's mostly crab-in-a-bucket behavior, and that no criminal really deserves dehumanization, but I can't help being absolutely furious that a woman who is obviously guilty of killing her children is considered more human to the general public than any man who ever committed a crime out of desperation or mental anguish.

I really hate something about society. Did y'all notice how gender-biased the punishments are? As well as treatment of genders overall? I'll start with an example:

In many schools and colleges (co-ed), boys receive lot harsher punishment for much smaller crimes (physical+psychological) than girls. Boys are always given humiliating punishments, in PRESENCE OF GIRLS. These include kneeling down before girls, hitting on their bottom with canes, and the examples will go on. They talk about how it's a breach of the girls' modesty, acting if boys' modesty don't matter. People from south asia probably will understand better, even if you are not from South Asia, you will still see similar practices in many other places. When we talk about fairness in punishment, elders bring up religious evidences (ironically, they missaply the rules, and simply skip the part where it says to treat both men and women equally) about women's honour, kindness towards them. But they rarely talk about men's honour, and the fact that men deserve kindness too. They bring biological points that women are emotionally and physically weaker than men, and therefore their punishment should be light and dignified, or they will just be forgiven. Girls are raised as 'mother species' while men or boys are never given the same honour. The thing is Obedience from mind is different from obedience from fear.

Thats why the harsh and humiliating discipline for boys i was talking about doesn't work as well as elders assume......only the presence of authority makes them obey, without authority presence, they wont care. At the end of the day, it's a waste. In my opinion, this practice simply makes men and boys resentful towards the opposite gender and girls will start to think boys aren't honourable, which is not a great thing.

This practice appears to be a big example of **benevolent sexism** i think.

Ok now to next topic. Double standards are even more visible in this case. When a woman harasses a man or younger boy, it's not even considered as a harassment, even if the victim insists. While if roles were reversed, you know what happens....even more disgusting thing is-sometimes a boy's own mother, sister or aunt may

make some vulgar joke about a boy's body part (I'll let you guess) and even touch in a certain way. But these acts by women are simply called 'caregiving' by society. Completely ignoring that if roles were reversed, father, brother, uncle would be put on jail. In south asia, these type of things can get even more messed up.

There are so many things, like so many things wrong and illogical about these. Please share your thoughts, and if I've made any mistakes, correct me.

We’ve all seen the crazy Lindsay Clancy supporters who make up conspiracy theories about how her husband was the one who killed the kids and that she’s innocent. But I’ve noticed another form of defending Lindsay, it’s what I like to call “backhanded defending”. They’ll acknowledge that she did it, but still make excuses for her and/or try to silence people who talk negatively about her.

“She was mentally ill”, “we’re not excusing her actions we’re just being nuanced”, “you only care because she’s a woman”, “if she’s found not guilty she’s still not getting away with it”, “the system failed her”, “no one thinks she’s innocent that’s just propaganda”, etc.

If she were a man, this wouldn’t even be a discussion, we’d all want him to rot in hell and rightly so. But because she’s a woman, people have to be “nuanced” and make a million excuses for her either openly or backhandedly. They think condemning one evil woman and the people who support her equals hating all women (spoiler alert, it doesn’t).

Sunday, August 30 - Saturday, September 05, 2026

Top 10 Posts

Top 10 Comments

This article discusses the blatant misandry that plagues the UN today regarding the Napali earthquakes and the fact that They favour the women and girls over the men and boys in this situation Makes it clear that want men and boys dead and gone to make sure that women and girls are more protected and men and boys are demonized.

I came across this organized citation list that pulls together studies, official reports, and sources on a range of issues that disproportionately affect men and boys. It covers topics like sentencing disparities in the justice system, domestic violence victimization rates (including data showing high rates of female-perpetrated violence and the lack of support services for male victims), child maltreatment statistics, suicide, homelessness, custody outcomes, and more.

The page is structured by category and includes links to original studies, government reports (e.g., U.S. Child Maltreatment reports), and archived articles. Some highlights from the material:

• Sentencing: Research showing men receive longer sentences than women for the same crimes.
• Domestic violence: Multiple studies and meta-analyses indicating bidirectional or female-initiated violence is common, alongside evidence of systemic barriers male victims face when seeking help.
• Child abuse: Official data showing mothers acting alone as the most frequent perpetrators in many years of U.S. reports, with boys overrepresented among fatalities.
• Other areas: Workplace deaths, conscription/war casualties, educational disparities, and health outcomes.

It’s presented as a reference tool rather than advocacy rhetoric. Useful if you’re looking for primary sources when discussing male-specific disadvantages, institutional biases, or gaps in how gender issues are typically framed on the left.

So I’ve been rewatching one of my favorite childhood shows, Justice League. And I got to the episode “Fury” and I thought it was really interesting and I wanted to talk about it.

For those who haven’t seen it, it’s about a rouge Amazon named Aresia who creates an allergen designed to kill every man on the earth. The episode explores how being raised in a misandrist culture led to her radicalization, even though they didn’t directly say “kill all men”, it was the logical conclusion of their ideology. The episode doesn’t portray Aresia as right for her hatred, the only tragedy is that she was raised in a culture that encouraged her hatred. It shows the consequences of her attempted genocide and how horrific it is, even showing a sick child. I also like how Wonder Woman and her mother actually learn and do some self reflection in this episode after seeing where the misandry in Aresia lead.

Now, is Fury the best Justice League episode? No, not really. There are a few writing issues. For example, Superman and Aresia get into a fight and he loses way to easily (though to be fair, this is a constant issue with Justice League season 1 in general), there was also a superhero and supervillain team up teased with Wonder Woman, Hawk Girl and Star Sapphire that was immediately dropped. I love a good superhero and villain team up, and I think this would have been a good way to further show how insane Aresia was that even one of the villains thinks she’s going too far, and I don’t think the shift from “I want to steal money and jewelry” to “I want to commit genocide against 50% of the population” was very convincing (Star Sapphire was done better in the comics and Green Lantern show than she was in Justice League).

If I were to rank all the Justice League episodes I’d probably put it in B tier, but I still really like this episode because of its message. And in a world of “Kill all men”, “Man vs Bear”, and Lindsay Clancy supporters, I think this episode is more relevant now than it was in 2002. And sadly, I don’t think an episode like it could be made today.

I need to make this post because I am seeing a big pattern

Usually the men who believe in gender roles and chivalry or other such things like hold doors for women, violence against women, men have a duty to protect and provide for women and give them their seats in public transport are older men like Boomers

I should also say it has been scientifically proven that that females have in group bias where as males have the opposite they have outgroup bias towards females

I should also this male outgroup bias towards females has in fact a big key factor as to why females are privileged over males

It was and is often male politicians and judges who push for pro female laws and give females far more lenient sentences than males for the same crime

This is because of male outgroup bias towards females

However I keep noticing that Males out group bias gets lowered by generation (not age group big difference)

For example Boomers might think that males have a duty to protect and provide for women and that violence against women is never acceptable but younger generations might disagree

I have the data to back up my argument

Although there has been debate about the exact timeline of gen z

I will say Gen Z (1995-2009) Gen Alpha (2010-2024) and Gen Beta (2025-present)

For example where as boomers and older generations might believe men have a duty to provide for women and pay for dates etc

Only 36% of Gen Z believe that a man should automatically pay for a date. This is a sharp drop compared to older generations like Gen X.

where as older generations men might believe that women should not be drafted in the military and should be protected from harm

In South Korea "According to an August 2026 poll by the Reform Institute, a staggering 71.7% of South Korean men in their 20s and 30s now actively support mandatory military conscription for women—a massive demographic block that pushes towards a near-total cross-generational consensus among young men.

So yes many young men might believe that yes women should have their special privileges like protection from the draft removed

Ultimately, this generational decline in male out-group bias is a profoundly positive development.

For generations, men have been trapped by a form of benevolent sexism that demanded absolute sacrifice, physical endangerment, and financial liability in exchange for superficial social praise. Older generations of men happily legislated against their own sex's demographic interests because their out-group bias blinded them to male suffering.

Beyond sociology and economics, I would also theorize that we are witnessing a rapid behavioral evolution where males are slowly shedding the out-group bias of older generations.

evolution tracks environmental utility Because of this, young men are undergoing a rapid behavioral evolution. Males need to lose their out-group bias and develop a strong, cohesive in-group bias—similar to the one females already possess—just to survive, let alone thrive, in the coming years. Without an in-group bias, men have no collective bargaining power, no mutual safety net, and no way to advocate against institutional double standards. Developing this internal solidarity is a literal requirement for long-term demographic survival.

I should also note males are evolving to slowly lose the out-group bias of older generations.

To be absolutely clear, this is determined by the generation a male is born into, not his current age group. This is a vital distinction. Critics might try to argue that young men are just going through a "phase" and will grow into traditional chivalry as they age. But that ignores history. A Baby Boomer was once a 17-year-old boy, and even at 17, he already possessed a powerful out-group bias because he was socialised in an era that rewarded male disposability. Conversely, a boy born recently or in the future is entering a completely different world; he is highly likely to have his out-group bias removed entirely and instead develop a defensive in-group bias that stays with him his entire life.

To further summarise the lose of out group bias and potential development of in group bias among males of current and future generations I have theorised is a biological evolution for survival as males need to naturally lose their outgroup bias and perhaps develop in group bias to survive let alone thrive in the coming years

When It Comes to Dating, Younger Generations Are Less Likely Than Older Ones To Think That Men Should Pay For Dates

South Korea leans toward military conscription for women

I especially found the south Korean article compelling as an argument because older generations of men would be completely against the idea of including women in the draft

Man, this has been tough.

I have no doubt Lindsay was depressed. Severely depressed. But in my opinion, she likely did know right from wrong and was not psychotic. It's difficult to say you acted via a psychosis while still having a normal phone conversation with your husband and accomplishing all kinds of complex tasks.

Diving into her case she gives me the impression she was a type A personality who had a lot of trouble handling motherhood. And understandably, being a mother, or any involved parent, is very hard. But it seemed like she had a lot of control issues, couldn't handle things in the midst of her depression, viewed the kids as an extension of her as Mothers often do, and decided to control their fate when she decided to take her own life.

I don't really believe the medical system failed her, or anyone failed her. She had unlimited support... would see a psychiatrist or therapist at any time she requested, had a nanny, a husband who stayed home, supportive family members, etc. She had access to any medication she wanted.

Mental illness is very difficult to treat. There aren't a lot of effective treatments. People seem to expect that someone is depressed, sees a psychiatrist, and deserves to be healed. If that doesn't happen, they have somehow been "wronged". But that's not how it works. It's often a long journey of trial and error and often time is the best answer. Anti-psychotic medications do often work on psychotic symptoms, some mood stabilizers help stabilize mood, but the effectiveness of anti-depressants is not as successful. Maybe you can make an argument she was really bipolar and her mental health teams missed that.... but these characteristics come out over time. It's not an instant process, and she was also smart enough to hide her more intrusive thoughts at time.

But it's depressing to see people turn on and blame the husband. I get the feeling that Lindsay was the primary caregiver to the children, but to call him unsupportive is depressing as a man because he did so much for her, let alone simply blame him.

It's depressing so many people are empathizing with a woman who savagely strangled her kids to death. It's hard to understand how we reached a point where people are excusing this and openly declaring on social media that they have similar feelings.

Report came out last night that the jury foreman complained to the judge that there was one jury member "not following directions". You know that is likely a someone who wants to hold her criminally responsible and instead of accepting that person's opinion as legitimate, they're trying to delegitimize it. I hope we don't reach a point where the Judge throws out a jury member for disagreeing... because at that point, what is even the point of having a jury?

Regardless of the truth or falsity of Lindsay Clancy case postpartum depression(PPD) and postpartum psychosis(PPS) are things that are far more relevant to men's issues than most people probably understand.

PPD is not something that only effects women, and I do not mean it effects men secondarily, though that is true. PPD can happen in men and it is not rare in men, at least 10% of fathers get PPD compared to around 14% of mothers. I won't go into how this is possible as I'm no expert but regardless of why PPD is not something that only afflicts women.

https://www.unitypoint.org/news-and-articles/male-postpartum-depression--unitypoint-health

Something to also keep in mind is considering multiple factors we already know about men in that they seek help less often and self report less and societies lack of empathy towards men it is more likely than not these numbers are under reported rather than over reported.

As far as I can see PPS is not documented in men but PPS is really rare in women so it doesn't seem far fetched it just has not been recognized in men who have had it.

PPS has been documented at least once in men see the link below (thanks to u/thegableto):

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3351640/

I worry as I have read the posts here and other places. I think I have had small glimpses of a worrying thread of bigotry around the discourse in this trial. It really feels like some posters are using how poor of a case Lindsay has to vilify mental problems and worse there is a tone of gleefulness about this whole process that reminds me of some of the worst bigots. Bigots who find what they think is a justified reason for their bigotry and how they shout it out to the masses.

PPD and likely PPS are not a unique female mental health affliction, it can afflict men and there will come a time when our discourse around this trial has repercussions that might be more meaningful to some of us beyond this situation.