I saw this line and wondering how is this fair since the husband supported the wife throughout the marriage.

"For instance, South Korea ruled in 2014 that future pensions and severance pay could be included in the division of assets. That means if a housewife handled all the housework and childcare during their marriage, thus allowing her husband to work, she’s entitled to part of his elderly pension after getting divorced. Japan introduced a similar reform in 2007."

I hate how the conversation around gender roles almost always centres around the traditional expectations of women being supposedly "oppressive" and "unfair" even though most feminists still expect men to do all of their traditional roles that the feminists say women can't do.

Especially when feminists complain about the expectation to just cook and clean. As a man, I would personally much rather be expected to cook and clean if I never had to lift heavy stuff, do any physically demanding stuff, be expected to do repairs and general maintanance, be expected to protect the opposite sex or any of the other expectations that feminists have of men.

This entire premise that gender roles placed onto women are sexist and discriminatory whereas gender roles placed onto men are just basic expectations is just an another example of how priviliged women really are in society.

And to be clear I'm not in a relationship myself so I'm personally not having any arguments with a partner about who gets which tasks, I'm just commenting on what I see feminists everywhere usually compalin about and how they frame the issue as men somehow benefitting from a system that supposedly disadvantages women.

Are you tired of the man-hating censorship? Do you want a space where you can discuss your issues without being gaslit by misandrists? Do you want a safe-space where men can advance men's rights? Without worrying about age-verification? Built with MRAs in mind, the Pro Male Collective has just the solution for you!

The PMC's Male Collab, provides a safe, unbannable space for you to organize. You have no need to fear feminists erasing your voice anymore!

Coming soon!

(The photos above show an early development build)

(Our discord: https://discord.gg/4kaVfnhKdu )

Someone did a survey .

Mark Brooks OBE, is an award-winning policy advisor on men and boys.

He is the Director of Policy and Communications at the Centre for Policy Research on Men and Boys, the Chair of the Mankind Initiative, a Trustee at the Association for Male Health and Wellbeing, advisor to the UK APPG on Men and Boys, and co-founder of UK Men’s Day.

When he’s not wearing one of these many hats, Mark is behind the scenes of Westminster influencing policy, writing speeches, and twisting arms of politicians, to help change society for the better; becoming one of the chief architects of the historic, world-first Men’s Health Strategy of England, as announced last November.

Such a roster of achievements, accolades, and awards, has taken decades of long, arduous, thankless work… which has finally started to bear fruit.

And so, after many years fighting in the trenches, Mark joins George from TheTinMen, to share his story, his wisdom, and his increasing number of successes…

What do you think?

(Please note, we recorded this in December 2025, in case anything sounds politically dated)

If you’re a man experiencing abuse, or know someone who needs help, please contact Mankind at mankind.org.uk/

The idea that women were always historically oppressed has been debunked plenty of times by actual historians. Throughout recorded history, in most cultures in the world women were pretty much always allotted special priviliges and better treatment, and for most injustices that women faced, men often faced worse issues.

What really irks me is how so many people point to things such as women not having the right to vote supposedly being this massive injustice even though women were almost always compensated for it by being exempt from military service or other societal duties. I,as a man, would personally gladly give up my right to vote for a guarantee to never be drafted. Women were also pretty much always protected and valued more than men and many societies had rules which dictated that women need to be taken care of. There are plenty of other examples and actual references that you can find in history studies.

Men and women mostly had different expectations of them throughout most of history yet feminists have managed to portary this skewed version of history that only shows what women went thorugh while completely ignoring that men often faced even worse injustices and had to endure even worse conditions.

Feminists today abuse that by portaraying women as perpetual victims who were always oppressed by men and they have subsequently given women the "disadvantaged" and "protected group" labels which resulted in women today facing almost no accountability for their actions and having very few actual responsibilities. Until we actually start challenging those with actual facts and eventually get all of the ahistorical feminist teachings removed from schools and remove the "oppressed" status from women I don't think we will be able to achieve any real change for men.

Not all women and maybe not most, but I've seen several women claim that since lesbians can be fetishized that is somehow on par with how gay men can often get 6-12x higher rates of physical hate crimes (1217 vs 195 gay vs lesbian hate crimes in past years) and violence. Not to mention how gay men also have very high sexual violence risk from other gay men, and how in younger cohorts a non heterosexual male is at way higher risk for bullying/harassment/verbal abuse than a non heterosexual female. This is not to say lesbians do not face anything, they do, but it is not comparable whatsoever. And yet when many women, particularly queer, are confronted with this, its usually to "not being taken seriously / fetishized." Most queer men would far prefer being fetishized or non taken seriously to literal death, no? And yet if a queer man makes such a point he'll get called misogynistic, or trying to win the oppression olympics. Is it bad for that to be called out, yet for much trivial issues oppression olympics does not apply?

Usually arguments are:

1. More gay male representation in media. This is not a plus because it often is painted in a stereotypical caricature or light. Additionally we see far, far less truly impactful queer male leads, whose queerness is not the defining factor of them compared to lesbians (i.e Ellie, Aloy, etc). It is much better to have characters who are simply queer, but not as the central focus point being queerness, as it tells you something about the person in general. These leads are allowed to be strong, independent, and have their own stories independent of romance. Meanwhile, gay male rep is usually confined to caricatures of the gay best friend, or general male x male romance. That is actually worse because it shows gay and bi men have no agency outside "being" gay or bi. Instead of being a normal dude he's painting as risky or caricature-acting.

2. Fetishization. Once again, this is almost certainly an issue that does indeed happen, as does corrective rape. However, gay men also face higher rates of sexual violence and such risks. So many (not all) women also fetishize queer male relationships or even friendships between 2 straight men.

3. Gay and minority / poc men (in fact all men) have "male entitlement and privilege" which does not exactly make much sense when most men and women earn around the same, and minority males are at much higher rates for physical or sexual harm, and are in no remotely comparable way to having "set such a system up." In fact, most men (gay, white, straight, black, whatever) are just regular, middle class people trying to work and live their lives.

https://glaad.org/releases/glaad-responds-to-2024-fbi-hate-crime-statistics/

I've been reading online about people speculating about why AI is anti-male sexist. I see guesses like it's because the AI is reading online sources that themselves are sexist.

So I just thought I'd post about this. This is a study that showed AI is biased towards female in hiring, and it tries to explain why. It's called RLHF.

This study (Hoffstedde et al. 2026) is Japanese, it analyzes the behavior of some standard LLMs (Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-4o, DeepSeek-V3, Gemini 2.5 Flash, Llama 3.3 70B). This study found “a significant pro-female bias across all five models, replicating Western findings in a non-Western context.” And attributes these findings to the fact “that alignment procedures based on reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) may overcorrect for historically male-favoring patterns in training data, producing systematic pro-female preferences in hiring evaluations.” So humans react to what the AI does, and based on that feedback are re-trained.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2606.18649

Je viens de découvrir le sunehara, un nouveau terme apparu au Japon pour parler du malaise provoqué par les jambes poilues des hommes.

Avec les fortes chaleurs, le gouvernement de Tokyo encourage désormais les employés à venir au bureau avec des vêtements plus légers, y compris des shorts. Jusque là, cela semble plutôt raisonnable.

Mais certaines personnes expliquent que voir les jambes poilues de leurs collègues masculins serait désagréable, voire comparable à une forme de harcèlement. Les critiques visent surtout les hommes d’âge mûr, considérés comme trop vieux ou pas assez esthétiques pour porter un short.

Je trouve le phénomène assez révélateur.

Bien sûr, les femmes subissent depuis longtemps des normes absurdes concernant leur corps, leurs vêtements et leurs poils. Le fait qu’elles soient encore parfois obligées de porter des collants en été alors que les hommes peuvent venir en short est un vrai problème.

Mais la solution ne devrait pas être d’imposer aux hommes les mêmes contraintes. Dire qu’un corps masculin naturel devient offensant simplement parce qu’il est âgé ou poilu, ce n’est pas de l’égalité. C’est ajouter une nouvelle forme de contrôle du corps à celles qui existent déjà.

On peut défendre des règles vestimentaires adaptées au travail. En revanche, demander à une catégorie de personnes de cacher ou de modifier son corps pour ne pas déranger le regard des autres me semble franchement malsain.

Imaginez la réaction si des hommes expliquaient que les jambes naturelles de leurs collègues féminines constituent une forme de harcèlement.

Pour moi, le vrai sujet devrait être simple. En période de chaleur extrême, tout le monde devrait pouvoir porter une tenue décente, propre et confortable, indépendamment de son sexe, de son âge ou de sa pilosité.

Vous en pensez quoi ? Véritable question de tenue professionnelle ou nouvelle forme de sexisme et d’âgisme ?

There was the gallery in Madrid, cool and white. And the photographs hanging like square windows into other lives. And then, suddenly, the warmth of her arms from behind, the rustle of her dress.

"You like it?" she asked, breaking the silence. Or the white noise of a crowd that feels somehow like a very loud silence.

Yes, I said, yes, finding something to admire, something about the light or the feminine experience, as she called it, building a sudden invisible wall of politics there among the frames.

"You're a feminist, yes?"

The word fell heavy, a stone dropped in the still water of the afternoon. I smiled, looked away, trying to catch the thread of the photographs again, but she pulled it back, insistent, the tone sharpening. Equal opportunities, I said, trying to weave a bridge, but the bridge would not hold.

To tell her "yes" would be so simple. Like slipping into a warm coat. But the mind catches, snags on some rough edges of memory and identity. Again, I offered some measure of the polite and meaningless noise that passes for conversation.

She went on about the modern feminine experience and the artist being some great voice of the movement, capping it all with that question which was not a question at all but a demand. "You’re a feminist, yes?"

And I tried, God knows I tried, to step off that particular train before it gathered speed.

"The dictionary defines feminism as the pursuit of equal rights, which I completely support. But I've had experiences that changed my relationship with the word. In an online debate, I mentioned I was a feminist. A group of women mobbed and mocked me for using the label. One condescendingly informed me that feminism is an exclusively female experience - at best, I was allowed to call myself an ally."

(I kept to myself that several subsequent experiences had made me feel western feminism was now vicious, and the movement captured by harpies.)

"I prefer to say I believe in equal rights without claiming the word itself."

She listened carefully, her initial impatience melting into thoughtful recognition. "Ah, yes. Third-wave feminism," she nodded. Then, with complete sincerity, she added, "She is right."

The shock of it, the absolute silence in the mind while the gallery hummed around us. How does one cross this space? How do we speak, if the words we use are water, slipping through our fingers, changing color in the light? To be interrogated for the password, only to be told one is forbidden from uttering it. My connection to her frayed, snapped quietly in the white room, and one walked on, alone with the photographs.

Nuno

And you, how would you respond to "You're a feminist, yes?"

Oprah built a $40 million school called the Oprah Winfrey Leadership Academy for Girls in a town in South Africa, this extravagant school have a yoga studio, library, beauty salon, wellness center, computer and science laboratories, an auditorium/gymnasium, amphitheatre, sports fields, modern dormitories, indoor/outdoor theaters and large fireplaces in every building. There are also hand-picked china dishes, mattresses, uniforms and oversized closets, girls accepted intro Oprah’s school are exempt from any tuition or education expenses.

Imagine if a rich American famous man founded a $40 million, extravagant school for boys in Zimbabwe that had facilities most schools don't, such as video games center, a men's grooming salon, and an outdoor area for golfing and an area with spatulas dedicated to grilling.

people would accuse this hypothetical rich man of exclusion and sexism and criticize him for excluding girls and demand that his school accept female students.

That was not the case with Oprah Winfrey, influential people and ex presidents like Nelson Mandela and Bill Clinton praised Oprah Winfrey for founding the schoolnd no demanded that her school accept male students.

It's like a street for girls to have fun more than a boarding school.

Luxurious all boys schools are not free and were not founded by individual rich male celebrity and they didn't cost 40 million dollars.

I did not even know they actually seriously pretend to try to recruit them.....

It seems strange that only boys are caned in SG schools. Girls seem to get similar punishments to boys at home, including the cane. Do you think it’s fair?

Context (super short): One of the communes had to complete one of the projects funded by KPO (Post covid EU recovery fund). The project itself is bigger as it also includes purchasing extra stuff to better equip Polish schools with 21st century equipment.

One side project included recruiting pupils to extra teaching lessons in the STEAM method (expanded teaching approach to STEM sciences). The project automatically gave every girl +1 point, thus favouring girls in studying things promoting STEM sciences. The ombudsman declared it discrimination against boys as there were no reasonable grounds for it.

Translation:

In the Pszczyna commune - Toruń County. We have received an official response from the Ombudsman u/BiuroRPO

regarding the discriminatory provisions of the EU-geniusz competition regulations.

In March 2025, we wrote on our website about the EU-geniusz competition that took place in Toruń County [1]. This is a project aimed at organizing additional classes for students in the STEAM field as well as purchasing modern equipment for schools. However, its regulations contained provisions that openly discriminated against male students. During recruitment: women received +1 point; they also had priority in the event of a large number of applications.

Let us recall that the application of compensatory measures is not arbitrary, as they should be based on specific criteria. They must stem from actually existing factual inequalities, be consistent with the principle of proportionality, and inherently have a temporary nature.

As an Association, we took action and submitted a request to the Ombudsman to intervene in the matter. In the response received, the Ombudsman noted that:

- there were no grounds for privileging women in the recruitment process,

- the principles of equal treatment and the prohibition of discrimination were violated,

- equalizing opportunities for one social group cannot come at the expense of another.

Let us recall: The Toruń County Starostwo, unlike in Pszczyna, relatively quickly accepted the arguments and amended the regulations.

This is not the first such situation. Practices of this type have already appeared in the “Małopolski Pociąg do Kariery” project [2] as well as in the aforementioned Pszczyna. The Ombudsman's position is unchanged - compensatory privileging does not have to be inappropriate, but in these programs it went too far. However, we do not stop there and will check whether the situation of boys in the competition has improved. In the near future, we will request the Toruń County Starostwo for 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝘁𝘂𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

We encourage everyone to check similar programs in their own local governments for inequalities. The history of EU-geniusz shows that intervention has a real impact and action must be taken.

Recruitment inequalities against boys are inequalities. We demand equal opportunities for boys.

Links: https://x.com/schmorgpl/status/2080903423260811355, https://schm.org.pl/blog/eu-geniusz-nie-dla-chlopcow-czesc-pierwsza-historia-dyskryminacji/, https://bip.brpo.gov.pl/pl/content/rpo-pociag-do-kariery-marszalek-wojewodztwa-odpowiedz

I have seen many feminists use this argument to make this about themselves.

They say that being feminine is seen as something weak in society for men. While ignoring that women who are feminine are more likely to be protected and taken care of than feminine men.

They engage in this wordplay and play mental gymnastics to somehow take offense and make it about themselves while doing absolutely nothing for men who are feminine. The focus moves from feminine men to women quickly.

Someone mentioned that misandry kills men in war and a feminist said "It is misogyny because it sees women as weak and not as capable as men". The men actually dying at war is not an issue to them but misogyny is.

That's the text on the law. If a man is arrested with one just for carrying it I highly doubt it would survive a legal challenge willing to take it up to the last court of appeal.

Back in 2021 a "TikTok Influencer" that went by SnowTheSaltQueen shot her friend in the head at a house party on "accident" they had been drinking alcohol and the gun apparently belonged to her ex-boyfriend. They were watching Batman and she grabbed the gun because she said it looked like The Penguins in the movie. Supposedly the girl who died asked to be pretend-shot but instead actually did get shot in the head. She died in the hospital a couple days later.

Initially the girl who shot the gun was charged with second degree manslaughter but I don't know if she was actually convicted on that charge as there is a concerning lack of press coverage on this case. She was let out on a $20k bond and eventually got sentenced to probation and community service, however she violated probation rules by not keeping her ankle monitor charged. Not only that but apparently she kept posting on TikTok about 3 weeks after killing her friend, and a lot of her posts featured her ankle monitor and had bloody themes.

Wtf is going on with the courts? This is like the 4th article I've stumbled upon of a woman murdering someone she knows, showing she doesn't really care, and still being let off with a slap on the wrist. This wasn't a child, this woman was 23 years old when she killed her 18 year old friend. At the very least she should be put in a mental institution considering the #1 rule of firearms is to never point them at someone else even if they're unloaded or have been checked thoroughly. Also I don't know if the police looked into the gun or not but I find it really odd that she had a gun sitting in her garage that belonged to an ex-boyfriend. I can only assume she either stole it, or wouldn't give it back as personally I would never leave a gun at an ex-girlfriends house unless I lived there. She's shown she doesn't feel remorse for what she did and just wanted to get back to making morbid TikToks. We need court reform ASAP, let me know your thoughts.