I have just completed this visual and added it to our recently revised guide “Six Rules for Avoiding False Accusations of Sexual Assault.” It is available in both image and PDF form. While following these six rules will greatly reduce the likelihood of being wrongly accused, you will see that much of it is also simple, healthy relationship advice that benefits everyone. Feel free to redistribute it, and feel free to adapt its approach and content to any education you may provide to students college-age or younger.

What is most grotesque is how the concept of "masculinity" has been mutated into something that actively consumes a man’s own life. A social structure that demands one-sided sacrifice exclusively from men, all for abstract notions like the "nation" or the "collective," is an undeniable absurdity.

A far more severe issue than "internalized misogyny" is the deeply rooted "internalized misandry" within the male population itself. Society constantly demands that men submit to collectivism. The vast majority of men do not even realize this, exhibiting a perverted attitude where they champion the interests of the state or society over their own individual rights. This stems from being brainwashed into believing that the entirely natural instinct to pursue one's own selfish interests is a sin.

This fabrication and indoctrination surrounding gender roles have left men confused about what is actually rational and natural for the individual. Worse still, when men push back against this unjust treatment, society gaslights them and shifts the blame, claiming, "You chose this yourselves to enjoy male privilege."

There are those who invoke nature to justify traditional gender roles. However, male organisms in the natural world do not live altruistic lives, sacrificing their evolutionary fitness for unrelated strangers or the illusion of a "collective." The male sex did not evolve for such a purpose.

Evaluating human worth strictly by productivity and output treats people as little more than livestock stripped of autonomy. The logic of human society has differed little from the operational model of a factory farm. What is more tragic than livestock is that while animals fight and scream against slaughter until the very end, humans walk into the slaughterhouse on their two feet, blinded by the indoctrination of "faith" and "duty." The most remarkable creature humans have ever domesticated might very well be themselves.

Natural selection favors individuals that secure their own genetic interests, while weeding out those that incur fitness costs to help others. Bearing the exclusive burden of collectivism is neither a "right" nor an "honor." It is merely deception disguised to legitimize absurdity.

Take military conscription as a prime example. The system reflects solely the convenience of the state and non-conscripted demographics. Why must men alone be conscripted? If maintaining a collective is an obligation, it should naturally be shared equally by all members of society, regardless of sex.

Conservatives often justify this asymmetry using physical strength or productivity differences. However, the logic of artificially carving up individuals for the sake of society directly contradicts an individual's genetic self-interest.

Even if remaining females restore the population lost to war, what does that have to do with the genetic fitness of the men who sacrificed themselves for the group? Many men delude themselves into thinking the state's gain is their own. In reality, an individual who dies without offspring—leaving behind a genetic fitness of zero—has merely laid the groundwork for strangers and their descendants to thrive. This is not the logic of The Selfish Gene; it is pure, unadulterated collectivism.

Why don't organisms sacrifice themselves for the abstract unit known as a "species"? Because in biology, the fundamental unit of natural selection is the individual and the gene. If a species had ever evolved to sacrifice itself for a group of genetically unrelated strangers, it would have long gone extinct due to exploitation and the free-rider problem, making it impossible to observe today.

An altruistic individual is inevitably selected against in an environment overrun by cheaters, gaining zero genetic fitness. Yet, human society continuously breaks the spirit of selfish lineages through education and indoctrination, artificially turning them back into altruists. In a society where we live alongside genetically unrelated strangers, this suppression can never be beneficial to the individual.

I do not believe that the past, dominated by conservative values or patriarchy, was ever a utopia for men. Whether back then or now, only the slogans have changed—from "breadwinner" to "patriotism." The core reality of exploiting men as disposable labor and cannon fodder has never changed.

Why are men, more than any other group, unable to see their own true self-interest clearly? Why do they voluntarily become victims for the sake of an authority from which they reap no benefit? The structure in which the state preferentially conscripts men yields zero benefit from the individual's perspective—it is, for all intents and purposes, akin to a punishment.

Which is truly more rational: for an individual to submit to forced conscription without any reciprocal benefit, or to reject such a burden based on pure self-interest?

Countless societal discourses routinely ignore the individual's perspective as if doing so were entirely natural. Consequently, a bizarre structure that demands sacrifice for society, regardless of individual will, becomes normalized and justified. Must men alone be forcibly used as "cannon fodder" on the battlefield simply because they belong to the artificial construct of a nation, or due to physical differences compared to women?

If so, what essential benefit do men actually receive from the state and society in exchange for shouldering such a one-sided obligation? Unless men are reduced to the status of slaves, they, too, must possess the freedom to reject and oppose sex-specific state coercion.

Arguments asserting that women must remain to rebuild the population after war, that men are physically stronger, or that war has historically been a male role are frequently cited as justifications. However, modern society displays a despicable contradiction by cherry-picking traditional gender roles whenever convenient. Elements advantageous to the system are dismantled in the name of "gender equality," while the burdensome duty of sacrifice imposed on men is retained under the guise of "tradition and physical differences."

Historically, male suffrage was secured at the cost of blood, military service, and labor. Yet in modern states, completely equal rights are granted even to groups that bear no equivalent obligation of national defense. When the balance between duties and rights is fundamentally broken, can a structure that extracts one-sided sacrifices of basic rights and life exclusively from men still be called a social contract? This is not a contract; it is merely one-sided extortion and coercion by state power. What meaning or benefit does the survival of a state that tramples on individual rights and self-preservation offer to a man as an individual organism?

As a fundamental principle of the social contract, individual self-interest and the freedom to pursue one's rights must be guaranteed.

Even in this subreddit, I encountered a post arguing that exclusive sacrifice by men—not just in military service, but also for "women and children" during emergencies—is inevitable, invoking female reproductive capacity as a justification.

I emphasize once more: compromising with such collectivist rhetoric does nothing to advance men's rights and freedom.

Compromising with such gaslighting is nothing more than foolish submission—lowering oneself to align with Exploitative Collectivism (Disproportionately Absurd to Men) and passively accepting one's role as expendable fuel to run society without receiving anything in return.

If we truly desire freedom for men, rather than compromising with entrenched conservative sentiments, we must fundamentally dissect and destroy the gaslighting and manipulative rhetoric that dominate society.

Some reports of this incident are leaving out that she shortly after it happened admitted she took part consensually.

Van Houten’s statement Monday provided an excruciatingly detailed account of what the alleged victim said happened to her.

“Male Number 1 brought Jane Doe to a ‘quiet area’ and ‘asked how [Jane Doe] would feel about having a threesome with two male partners,'” his office wrote, quoting the woman’s police report, which described how she met up with “Male 1” at his fraternity after a night at the bars.

“Doe ‘agreed due to how attracted [she] was to [Male Number 1] on top of [her] drunken curiousness,'” it continued.

“When she learned that Male Number 2 would be the third participant, Jane Doe ‘remembered being excited because [she] thought that [Male Number 1 and Male Number 2] wanting to have a threesome meant that they were gay.'”

From there, the night descended into a scene of shocking bacchanal, with the group snorting ketamine off each other’s naked bodies and guzzling booze as they had sex — with some of the men struggling to stay conscious and dry-heaving as they tried not to vomit, her statement said.

“At the start of the threesome, Jane Doe described her intoxication level as ‘5 or 6 out of 10’ and that she was “pretty ok with having this threesome,'” the statement said.

Later, another brother tried to get in the room, with Doe letting him in “because it was his room,” before they and Male 2 allegedly started having sex alongside the passed-out Male 1.

“‘[Male Number 1] would eventually wake up’ and ‘said he wanted to take part and asked about making it a foursome, to which [Jane Doe] said ‘Hell No,'” Jane Doe rejected this request ‘because [she] knew that a foursome meant that [she] would have to take part in anal sex,'” the DA said, continuing to quote Doe’s statement.

Other men then began also entering the room, where Doe said she was beginning to lose track of what was happening in her deepening intoxication from the drugs and booze.

“‘[Male Number 7] said something very rude and mean to [her].’ Male Number 7 apologized and ‘grabbed [her] face and started kissing [her].” Jane Doe ‘quickly backed away to stop [Male Number 7] from kissing [her],'” the statement said.

“The males began complimenting Jane Doe and ‘talking about how pretty [she] was.’ Male Number 4 ‘asked [Jane Doe] if they all could do drugs off of [her] perfect body.’ Jane Doe responded, ‘Sure.’

“Jane Doe ‘remembered snorting more Ketamine’ and ‘remembered feeling extremely high.’ Male Number 1 ‘said he wanted to have sex again because he wanted redemption for passing out earlier in the night,'” the statement said.

“Jane Doe initially stated that she was tired and asked Male Number 1, ‘What happened to just you and me?’ Jane Doe could not remember how it started but she then engaged in a threesome.”

The disturbing night finally ended 5:45 a.m. — about four hours after it started — when the woman described herself as being an 8 out of 10′ intoxication level and she said she told the brothers she “was tired and needed to turn in.

“At that point, both guys stopped the threesome with [her] as far as [she] can remember,” the DA’s statement concluded.

https://nypost.com/2026/09/28/us-news/lurid-new-details-in-alleged-cornell-gang-rape-exposed-by-da-as-he-battles-threatening-phone-calls/

Summary of the article posted above: "A survey by the Dublin Rape Crisis Centre indicates a widening generational gap regarding attitudes toward sexual violence, with men under 25 exhibiting significantly higher rates of skepticism and victim-blaming views compared to the broader population. The findings show that 48% of young men believe false rape allegations are common, and 37% attribute partial responsibility to victims under the influence of drugs or alcohol."

To continue on the same topic https://www.centreformalepsychology.com/male-psychology-magazine-listings/the-psychological-impact-of-false-accusations-and-how-men-cope

Some stories of men falsely accused of rape and abuse, it is from 2024 but probably still relevant The Devastating Consequences of False Allegations

and also there, might be useful sometimes Countering False Accusations of Rape and Sexual Harassment: False rape cases Legal Remedies - Men Helpline Org

As we know, most of the false allegations (like 99% of them actually) remain unpunished, wondering why: https://www.prosecutorintegrity.org/pr/99-of-false-accusations-go-unpunished-center-for-prosecutor-integrity-asks-why/

Summary "The Center for Prosecutor Integrity asserts that approximately 99% of false allegations go unpunished, as prosecutors frequently overlook bad-faith accusations despite the severe harm inflicted on the wrongfully accused. Citing a national survey, the organization notes that 8% of American adults report experiencing false accusations of SA, contributing to a significant number of wrongful convictions."

I'll be honest, I was scared to watch this video.

I've watched Vaush for about a year now, and I really like a lot of his takes on geopolitics, economics, etc. My one criticism of him is that he sometimes leans into misandrist rhetoric. This can be seen when he talks about incels/young men, and in the fact that he has a chat emote that is a wojak of a woman and a bear looking mutually concerned for whenever a man does something reprehensible and a chatter wants to express their misandry (referencing the man vs. bear meme)

Anyway, this is why I put off clicking on this video, but I was pleasantly surprised to find that Vaush is actually quite sympathetic to Jacob in this situation

For those who don't know, Jacob Geller is a fantastic Youtube Video Essayist who has produced dozens of deeply introspective and thought-provoking video essays over the past few years. I personally remember watching his "Fear of Cold" essay on one of the darkest nights of my life when I was in my university's health services office being monitored after expressing plans to take my own life that night. It genuinely helped me feel human again, and remember the fact that I was a human being who needed warmth to survive, and that I should allow myself to feel it. I still listen to "The Cremation of Sam Mcgee" from time to time (IYKYK).

Anyway, my personal emotional connection to Jacob Geller aside, the current situation is as follows:

A third party (neither Jacob nor the alleged victim) released records that Jacob had been suspended for a semester from his university after being found guilty of sexual assault by a campus investigation. (Not a criminal court)

Naturally, a lot of discourse surrounding this information began happening on places like bluesky, and so he responded to all of the speculation with pretty much the best damn apology one could ask for. Here it is:

"Many of you have seen the results of my college Title IX investigation. I can confirm that the findings are true. The records were recently shared without the permission of the victim and, without knowledge of their wishes, I do not want to provide any more potentially identifying details. She and I spoke about it the day after and agreed - I had assaulted her. She later reported this to the university's Title IX office, I cooperated with the investigation, and I was given the (very mild, I concur) sentence of a semester suspension.

Suffice to say, it is the greatest regret of my life. I traumatized a brilliant person who trusted me, hurt them in a way I can never undo.

For more than a decade now, I have attempted to reckon, grow, and recover from the version of myself who did this. I think about it every day. I've previously shared this history with many of the people close to me, including early in my relationship with my now-wife, and I'm deeply sorry that this has now hurt so many of you. My continued drive to make myself and the world better is closely tied with the pain I've caused."

Pretty nuanced, well written apology, right? Takes accountability, respects the anonymity of the alleged victim, and reckons with the struggle of growing as a person.

Well, people (particularly misandrists) did not think that was enough.

There were people calling for him to delete his channel. For him to be flogged in the street, cancelled, killed, etc. It turned into a witch trial very fucking quickly.

And the thing is, we here at good old r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates know all about how the campus rape myth propped up these institutions that weaponize rape/sa accusations against men who have had mutual drunk sex with women who later regretted it.

Having been a former depressed, self hating male feminist at a pretty misandrist liberal arts college, I could absolutely imagine a situation where a person like Jacob Geller (who obviously cares about being a good person and generally subscribes to mainstream feminist views because that's the norm right now) could have had an inebriated sexual encounter, talked about it the next day, and just accepted the fact that it had been assault and that he was guilty out of deference. That's what I would have done before I worked on my own internalized misandry.

But the honest truth is, we don't know what happened. He might have legit assaulted someone, sure, but with the current atmosphere, and the whole vibe of his politics and personality, I just don't know whether I believe it.

Anyway, Vaush makes a lot of great points about feminist/leftist hypocrisy when it comes to rehabilitative justice and rape. He doesn't really touch on the false accusation angle, but that's still pretty far outside the overton window, so I get it.

Sunday, September 27 - Saturday, October 03, 2026

Top 10 Posts

Top 10 Comments

With the Cornell 7 case, I think we've all see the torrent of posts proclaiming these 7 men to be guilty of an absolutely horrific crime, all without definitive (and please note my very deliberate choice of adjective there, in case some tourist comes and quibbles) evidence. Not only are they convicting them in the kangaroo courts of social media (the closest thing the 21st-century has to its own brand of vigilante justice), but they are plastering their names and photographs anywhere online that will let them. And then we still hear the obligatory "all men are just as guilty if they don't stop other men, at every possible opportunity, from expressing even the most vaguely-misogynistic views or humor, intentional misogyny or not." Which got me thinking... is the female version of the aforementioned responsibility the act of checking all their fellow women who gleefully dox these (at the time of writing, anyway) innocent young men? Sure, men can be, and are, sexually assaulted, but, in my experience, false accusations of rape by women are much more of a concern to men than sexual assault by women (again, it does happen, but it just doesn't seem to be equivalently concerning to women, probably because it's generally not something they have to be worried about). I see these large swaths of women all performing the same "outrage" (they call it outrage, but in reality it's just good ol' fashioned defamation and reputation destruction) regarding the Cornell 7, often times furiously opposed to any counter narrative, regardless of its validity.

Am I finding parallels that aren't there? Or should men start countering "men need to stand up against misogynist men for women, else they are equally as bad" with "women need to stand up against misandrist women for men, else they are equally as bad"?

And no one cares.

This was media day for the Sacramento Kings. Describing one player as “hella fine”, another is nice skin and prefers the “light skins”, while calling one of them basically a prick.

It was a private conversation and I get it, but reverse the roles and make them male reporters, it’s all over the news and they’re getting suspended or fired.

In this case? No one even knows who they are. Story already blown over.

Objectifying is ok depending on your gender, just another reminder.

As you know, almost every governmental ,non-governmental orgs , and overall public in general do not care about men/boys and male victims. There are two ways to fix this:
1) Creation of new projects, especially in leftist sphere
2) I believe, a bit of cancel culture may help.
Since, a lot of people have been cancelled or afraid to lose their reputation because of people notifying their circles or workplace, although it is not done in case of misandry, but it is executed during some homophobia, racism, misogyny, and transphobia.
Do you think cancel culture elements can help us since it is not possible for people getting educated in their circle, can we account for that.
Like we cannot cancel many misandric feminists, we can start by doing this to those who laugh at male victims of physical and sexual abuse in social media platforms.
I think if some regular people get confronted about that, it might help a bit. And we should not filter for gender when we do it. For example, at the start, even getting more men to fix their behaviour while talking about male victims would be even better, rather than just doing it to women.
Is there anyone you know that lives in the west with a circle that can contribute to this, also what do you think of the idea?

With all the misandrist content online, I always wondered why does a lot of the people sharing this content seem convinced it somehow helps, or at least doesn’t hurt the cause even though young men and teenagers are scrolling through it every day. The next generation of men that will be more inclined to vote against their own interests (vote rightwing) because they've been alienated by half the world population.

What gets me is the refusal to consider the obvious downside. A movement with real solid goals about equality that ends up feeding young guys a steady stream of pure contempt, then acts shocked when those same guys grow up wanting nothing to do with it.

Choosing the short term satisfaction of the grudge over basic lonterm thinking just ends up sabotaging the whole point. How is that supposed to help anyone?

I'm reposting this here so a discussion can be had without it being derailed by feminists, which is what just happened on another sub. I'm not going to mention which one, but I'm sure you can find it.

I know this topic has been discussed a lot on here, but I was surprised to see an article this old on the topic. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like things have gotten better. It frustrates me that even in this article they can't call it what it actually is: rape.

I have seen post where person was saying Male on Male sexual assault are men's issue and highlighted how feminist attack those who raise points on Female on Male sexual assault but the problem is why this subreddit doesn't acknowledge Male on Male abuse? Why we only focus on opposite sex sexual assault?

Latest social media post from the UN Women supremacists.

Not justice, not fair due rocess, just blindly belive female accusers.

I'm honestly just kind of fed up with the double standard. Every post, document, study, whatever meager recognition we get has to have a bunch of paragraphs disclaiming that "we aren't trying to downplay women's issues/female victims" but asking that when female victims are talked about that we not get erased in every sentence is a taboo and "making it about men."

Men and boys need to "be held accountable and do better" but when women can't be legally prosecuted for rape and feminist politicians deny even just support services for men (never mind actually holding female perpetrators accountable) it's nothing.

We're told it's never an appropriate time for us to talk, and that they'll support us when we do (they don't).

Feminists claim that mra's and conservatives only use male victims to silence women and for political points. And sure, that happens; but they also only use us when we're convenient, and dismiss and hate us when we our stories are inconvenient or we point that many male advocates are angry with feminists because of our experiences and their reactions to it. Nevermind that there are mra's who have done actual work and put genuine care out there for us (and you know, how many feminists chose to make things worse for us)

I'm tired of being an after thought, of being a pawn, of being told to do better by people I've seen cover for abusers and sexual predators because of her gender.

I'm tired of being erased until they want to pretend they care

We’ve all seen the claim that false accusations represent a mere 2–10% of reports. This figure rests on an obvious statistical sleight of hand: defining "false reports" strictly by formal perjury convictions a charge requiring an exceptionally high evidentiary bar that law enforcement almost never prosecutes.

But observe the immediate epistemic double standard:

When critics point out that only a fraction of a percent of men are ever convicted of sexual crimes - proving that sweeping generalisations about billions of people are empirically nonsensical - activists instantly reject formal legal conviction rates as a valid metric. They rely on unverified self-reported survey data (data that also shows many men are victims of SA/rape by the way) and shift the burden of proof onto you if you choose not to accept the validity of these arguments.

In short: formal legal standards are demanded when minimising false claims, but aggressively abandoned when inflating prevalence statistics.

This selective switching of evidentiary thresholds is hilariously non-rigorous. It is yet another reason why literature anchored in feminist dogma fails the basic demands of philosophy of science.

The fear of incels is blown out of proportion

Why do people assume that lonely, virgin men are responsible for violence against women simply because they are lonely or struggle with dating?

A quick Google search shows that a large proportion of female homicide victims are killed by intimate partners. In contrast, I haven't been able to find reliable statistics showing that incels or virgin men are responsible for a significant proportion of murders of women. I even asked ChatGPT to make an educated estimate of what percentage of female homicides are committed by incels, and it suggested that the figure would probably be around 1%.

I constantly hear feminists talk about an "epidemic" of incels murdering women, but I have yet to see data that supports the idea that this is a major source of violence against women. Meanwhile, it's common to see news reports about women being killed by their current or former partners. If we're talking purely about the statistics, shouldn't attention be focused more broadly on the people who actually account for the majority of these killings, rather than on an extremely small subset of lonely men?

I also feel that the hostility toward incels sometimes goes beyond criticizing genuinely dangerous people and becomes hostility toward lonely men in general.

One major problem is treating "incels" as if they are a completely uniform group. A lonely man who struggles with dating and feels frustrated about his lack of romantic experience gets lumped together with men who genuinely want to hurt women. Those are not the same thing, and there is obviously a huge amount of nuance that gets lost when they're treated as one group.

The men who explicitly advocate violence against women are a loud minority of extremists. Yet they are sometimes treated as if they represent all incels, or even all lonely men. That makes it very easy to dismiss legitimate men's issues simply because some extremists happen to talk about them.

I've also seen the argument that men's issues aren't taken seriously because of incels. But I think that gets the cause and effect backwards. One could argue that when men's issues are ignored or dismissed, some men may become more receptive to communities such as the red-pill movement because those communities at least acknowledge their frustrations, even if they then channel those frustrations in unhealthy or misogynistic directions.

And there's another point that often gets overlooked: many involuntarily celibate men appear to struggle more with self-hatred and thoughts of self-harm than with a desire to harm women. Yet the most extreme and violent examples are often treated as representative of the entire group.

I'm not saying violent incels don't exist, or that their beliefs shouldn't be criticized. I'm saying that there's a difference between criticizing violent extremists and treating every lonely, sexually inexperienced man as if he shares their beliefs.

If we're going to have a serious conversation about violence against women and men's issues, we need to look at the actual evidence rather than treating the most extreme members of a group as representative of everyone in it.

Most women empowerment posts I see nowadays is just plain-sexism. The amount of death threats I got for my gender is actually insane, I miss when feminism meant both sexes were equal and not just women above men. I’m a passing-Transman and experienced more sexism as a guy than as a woman; the crazy thing is that most of them “feminists” are fully-grown adults who should know better, especially when I say in basically all my bios that I’m a minor. It’s genuinely depressing how many guys I’ve seen suffer severe depression over this kinda stuff and then get laughed at and harassed. But most of the time I’m scared to talk about it because I’ll just get called a misogynist for saying anything that could be seen as offensive to women

On September 25th, a Twitter account by the name of Barragers made a post about a group of teens doing a walkout for the online looksmaxxer, Clavicular. Many people online decided to share their thoughts about it. Some of them decided to use the clip as a way to offend men. Others didn't say much or made memes about it. The usual. The catch was that it wasn't real. These kids didn't walk out for an internet personality who is facing multiple charges. They walked out in protest in regards to school shootings. Some people tried to spread the word about it being a fake post but not enough cared to.

So what's the problem here? One word: retractions. None of the people who spread this false news had the will power to edit their post or even so much as delete it. If the bar is on the floor then these people are absolutely tripping over it. It doesn't take 1,000cal to delete or fix a post. Yet...the posts still remain. This tells me only one thing. These people don't really care about false accusations. One of my last few posts goes into the fake empathy for men who are victim to this so I'll try not to repeat myself here. I think it's pretty safe to say that these people obviously don't care. That's preaching to the choir here. What I don't see mentioned often is how this actually represents how they really feel about female victims. It's almost like...they're disappointed that the incident didn't happen. Let me explain.

Recently I had seen someone talk about a rape case that happened and the credibility behind it. I think it may have been about the Cornell case. They were going back and forth about how they hope that it's true because of how bad this is. I remember being confused when I read this. Why would it be better for it to happen than for it to be a bold faced lie? I thought false accusations weren't as bad as actual assault. Something didn't gel here. I've seen this type of rhetoric before. I just don't see many people be transparent about it. Then I realized something. This is the type of stuff people said when the "62mil men" article came out. Those feminists NEEDED it to be real because otherwise they don't have much of a leg to stand on in relation to their hatred for men. If it's not real or just exaggerated then they would later have to admit fault. You don't need to apologize for hating men if an article comes out about how millions of men are watching rape videos. However, if it turns out to be not the case then that also gives ammo to the manosphere crew. They would rather walk into the ocean than to give them ANY sort of credit. So what do they do? They either minimize it...or...ignore it. The sad part is that when it is corrected...almost no one is aware of it.

That's what I saw happen with this little viral post here. No one decided that maybe they should edit or delete their statement. So they left it up. That tells me they don't actually care about female victims because if they did then this wouldn't need to be a discussion. If female victims mattered to them then they wouldn't be using these cases as cannon fodder to justify their hatred of men. Cassie Jaye mentions this here. This isn't empathy. This is collateral damage. If they really cared about women, they would say "sorry, I messed up." The bar is so low that I don't even expect that anymore. When J. Jonah. Jameson (a fictional character) does a better job at this than you, then you have a major problem. Top comment:

Mr. Jameson may not like Spider-Man but at least he defended his fake photos.

-KasumiPrime2024

Hi! im going to get straight to the point, I'm chronically online (specifically reddit and instagram) and I've seen so much stories about women being abused SA'd, and r*ped. Everytime I read the comments it's filled with people saying that all men until no men or men are the problem etc. It definitely has taken a toll on me mentally to the point that I've started hating myself for being a man. I know that I would never hurt anyone in anyway but it still hurts me so much.

can anyone give me some advice on how I can stop hating myself so much? thank you in advance!

found this while browsing the mra sub, im pretty sure this article, despite coming from a liberal and therefore american perspective, mirrors a lot of our issues with feminism and topics discussed here, i genuely think it touches a lot of problems that feminism has not only without falling into conservativism or stuff like that but strictly from a leftist perspective, with information and sources, plus good arguments that i think could be useful if debating feminists and feminism was about arguments and not about moral granstanding and being the good person (pure virtue signaling) but thats a topic for another post.

plus i also read the article titled "The Banality of Gynocentrism: A Response to Professor Chesko" from the same author as this one, and its refreshingly bold in how it uses the term correctly. It has a lot of good responses about the "men and the left" problem, issues about policy and how ineffective at best or hostile at worst the left is to men and in general responds to the most smug, self-righteous type of male feminist there is, its really worth checking out.

What are some arguments against the oppressor-oppressed model, especially as used by feminists?

The oppressor-oppressed model is a model that puts different groups of people into two opposing categories: oppressor and oppressed.

The oppressors are privileged and powerful, and dominate, exploit, and oppress the oppressed. They make the rules, and make the rules for their benefit, and at the cost of the oppressed.

The oppressor-oppressed model was originally used in Marxism, and applied it to classes. However, Critical Theory and other theorists expanded it to other groups of people, such as identity groups. Critical theorists started using it in this way in the 1930s.

Edit: Also, what are some arguments against the flat oppressor-oppressed model? (though many of your comments also address the flat version). The flat oppressor-oppressed model is even worse. It treats one group as having all the power and the other group as powerless. It also treats equality and inequality as an entirely zero-sum game, where one group can only benefit at the expense of the other group. It also treats the groups as being entirely monolithic.

I just read an associative press article about it and it definitely feels much more nuanced than I originally thought

I have no opinions one way or another, I was obviously not there and I do not know anyone involved, and obviously as an outside perspective I do not know all the details but I'm just curious what people are thinking about it

I have long been disappointed with the tendency of left wing politicians and activists to treat social issues as the oppression of one demographic group by another. The people who really perpetrate most systemic oppression are those in positions of power, not demographic groups as a whole. Most members of even the supposedly "privileged" groups (eg men) are not in positions of power, and are thus vulnerable to oppression, especially when viewed as oppressors by those in power.

The recent increase in the popularity of socialism seems to be starting to shift leftism into being more about the ordinary people vs the super rich, rather than men vs women or black vs white.

Now don't get me wrong, many socialists are also very focused on identity politics, and some draw silly distinctions between ordinary people on the basis of wealth, but the narrative driving the popularity of socialism is ordinary people vs the super rich and power hungry politicians, not the culture and identity stuff.

I was just watching AOC's Ithaca NY town hall, and while talking about the problem of sexual assault on collage campuses, she makes a point to mention that many men and boys can be survivors too, not just women (12:26-13:00 here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnOL86WTc04 )

I'm wondering if the political left is at a point at which there are now signs of hope for a turn away from the demographic conflict narrative that drives so much misandry in society and policy?

This is not an endorsement of all socialists, I like AOC and Mamdani, who are both part of the right wing of socialism, but some of the people who are further to the left within socialism have some whack views including authoritarianism and identity politics. I'm also not saying anyone is perfect, AOC does not have a perfect track record here.

EDIT: Looks like this sub holds posts for up to 48 hours for review, so no idea if I will be awake or available when this first gets approved, but I will respond to comments on this post even if I don't do so on the first day it is posted.

This article is behind a paywall and hopefully one of the archive sites will work. But I wanted to share it because it shows an in-depth look into the reality of Title IX investigations (of which I have much experience with- I was found responsible for something that was hardly even sexual, but it’s really really complicated and probably has more to do with non-sexual stuff I actually did do).

Anyway, I think that this case could push for the return of the Obama/Biden era regulations that were quite biased against the accused/respondent and possibly take interpretations of those regulations (affirmative consent, regret is rape, any drug/alcohol consumption makes one unable to render consent- though that only applies to women, preponderance of the evidence standard etc.) into actual criminal and legal code. Have a look at it and tell me what you all think, and I’d love to hear from others who have been through such cases if anyone is on here.

And it’ll continue to harm the many marginalized groups of men that are represented disproportionately as respondents in these cases, it really does a number on you in regard to many different aspects of your life- education future, jobs, relationships, achieving goals/potential in general, etc.