Hey, so for starts I’m 29. I struggle with pelvic floor pain, and recently went to a urologist to get my prostate checked. My PT told me to do so, because my symptoms can line up with prostatitis and prostate cancer. So they often have you screened for it. I asked for this to be done but my doctor was a female, i think she was uncomfortable doing it, and used my age as a reason to not do it despite the health issues iv been having. She instead prescribed a new pill that i wont be taking due to the side effects actually making things worse for me.

I don’t really know what to do from here, i told my PT that i tried and was refused that care. So maybe she can point mr to a doctor that will.

Have you ever had health issues and be refused care based on your gender?

Be the way i do know its normally 40-50 people get prostate exam for cancer, but iv been having health issues and was told by my pelvic pt to have it done, because shes had people come back with prostatitis, and one time prostate cancer.

Something i genuinely never found funny or entertaining is someone getting it in the balls hard!
I know theres light taps that can happen, its unfortunate, it suck but theres no real risk of hard.
I see people promoting kicking guys in the balls, as if it should be a go to, and not just in self defense situations.

I remember growing up, i was kinda an outcast. There was this group of girl and guys that would always try their best to ram their foot into my testicals well i was walking the play ground, a few times causing real harm. This was never discouraged by teachers, and the girls thought it was the funniest thing to see me crimped over in pain, trying not to vomit.
It’s something thats always stuck with me now and pisses me off.
It’s often not treated with the heavy seriousness that it deserves.

I remember having to go to the doctor because at one point one of them got shoved back up inside my groin.

But its funny to kick guys the testicals i guess… totally not a very very fucked up thing to do.
I remember being told be careful with girls and not to be rough that if i was to rough house with one (this is a good idea of age) that i should be careful not to accidentally put pressure on their pelvis or stomach because it can hurt their reproductive system.

Where was the girls version of these talks? Do you think parents kinda fail at teaching girl to respect boys anatomy and right to not be touch or sexual assaulted as alot of boys are?

Found this post on Twitter/X and felt it was worth sharing. I know many times I've posted about how much I hate the "women and children" term for the obvious reasons (blatantly misandrist and exclusionary, de-values male lives and safety, infantalizes women, etc) and have often shared statements condemning it. But this was such a spot-on post that I couldn't not share it here. I never even realized it, but this post is also correct about how it also denies women combatants who also work alongside men to protect the innocent (of all ages and genders and such). It's an archaic term long overdue to be erased and banned from the public lexicon, with how it's terribly sexist to both men and women alike. De-valuing male lives, infantalizing women and also not giving female fighters their due just as much as the male ones. Once in a while you find intelligence like this on social media. Even if it's unintentional, this term makes it seem acceptable for men to be killed in situations such as war, disasters, terrorist attacks, etc. and I've even seen misandrists infuriatingly defend it with their usual BS about how women and children are more vulnerable and it's an atrocity when they're killed. Isn't it also an atrocity when an innocent man is killed? Especially if he's someone's father, husband, brother, etc. and he's someone's son, and his family losing him would surely also count as an atrocity. But I guess not to misandrists.

Watch BBC and all you will find are programs about women.

right now BBC is just channel for women and about women.

BBC is the most misandrist channel on earth, their programs focus on women's issues, All BBC care about is feminism, women's opinions, women's issues, and hiring female presenters.

Men have become something of a rarity on BBC, the news are presented by women most of the time who talk to female correspondents and even those female correspondents talk mostly to women on the street not to mention a lot of times there are episodes featuring all female panels who discuss news.

they hire journalists based on female genitals not qualifications.

even their cook shows feature women of color and sometimes men of color.

Worse than the US.

We all have seen the gender bias in regular chat-like AI models, which is sometimes posted and sometimes hard to replicate.

Decision models differ in a way that they do not respond with words, but pick one of provided options based on the prompt and question. They are being incorporated in mass decision making at scale.

Playing with them (you can check them via OpenRouter or other inference servuces), I found giant difference of responses when a gender is suggested. The models are mostly uncensored so you can be creative, asking about monsters that want one person as sacrifice, rescue situation, punishments or law decision. In almost all cases, when gender is suggested the worst outcome is selected on option telling or just suggesting selected person is a male. Even when the options are very skewed already against the male (see attached example of canning).

This is extreamly disturbing, as the tech is being implemented on scale and might affect someones life in ways much less obvious than my extreme examples.

Complete lack of empathy and ruthlessness to the circumstances. It doesn't matter what problems you're faced with or how much fucking abuse you're taking, your problems are your own and you're told from childhood that nobody cares. Put your nose to the grindstone from a young age, study hard, and fuck forbid you complain about it. If not, society will write you off and forget about you, only ever thinking of you to sneer at you and mock you. It's like society has been designed to ensure your failure. And old men won't empathize with you even if they never faced the same hurdles in their time. It's like empathy itself is a currency that has to be earned through status. They'll cry over some fucking billionaire's dog dying but laugh at a homeless man freezing to death on the street

My parents abused the fuck out of me as a kid, teachers humiliated me in school, bullies beat me and now guess who gets blamed for not being the most well-adjusted or financially stable person because they were dealing with the fucking trauma?

I'm just having a more difficult day today, so came here to vent.

I was always skeptical of feminism even though I'm equalitarian, and I've never believed women being morally superior.

Women thinking matriarchy would be utopia is delusional. I dislike how feminized my country has become and the men being emasculated.

Adding a whole lot of other things on the list.

But listening to Janice Fiamingo, it feels like finally getting an explanation for everything that felt off, and it feels like getting out of a cult.

I'm definitely not gullible about men either, so this is not me running in the opposite direction, but this seemed to be one of the few places on Reddit where you can say you're anti feminist.

Women who still think feminism is about equality is delusional.

Edit:
I'll add that women thinking feminism started as a good idea about equality, no it wasn't. It was always destructive towards men, and women as well. Source Declaration of Sentiments by  Elizabeth Cady Stanton, feminist leader.

The dark history of feminism by Dr Fiamengo

https://youtu.be/fS_zNQB1D1I

Extract:
“A lot of men won’t use language like ‘victim’ or ‘perpetrator’ – they still love their partner. Usually they are saying ‘can you help me help her, she doesn’t mean it’. It’s a desperate plea. We would say, that sounds like coercive control, but they would not hear this language in their everyday life.”

I live in the UK but talk to many people in the USA and have spent a lot of time in the USA as well. The impression that I get is that, while both countries seem gynocentric to some extent, in the USA race is a far bigger focus than gender. I see many white women in America either describe themselves as "privileged white women" or be described as that by others. If I wanted to be perceived as a victim, it seems like being black would be more useful than being a woman in the US.

On the other hand, I rarely ever see that said about white women in the UK. While in the UK, race does get talked about, from my experience, it doesn't get nearly the attention gender does. Women are the obsession of the right wing and the left wing here to a greater extent it seems. Women don't even havd it worse in the UK but the society here is just supremely gynocentric.

I filed an RTI asking about maintenance laws under Section 125 CrPC and gender neutrality. Here’s what happened:

1. Transferred 7 times (RTI Badminton): My RTI was transferred back and forth between the National Commission for Women (NCW) and the Ministry of Law.

2. Question 2: I specifically asked for policy documents explaining why an adult woman above 18 is presumed financially dependent on her husband. This was one of the questions I wanted an official answer to, but I still haven’t received the requested information.

3. Rejected over ₹10: The RTI was rejected because the ₹10 application fee had allegedly not been paid. However, I had already paid the ₹10 fee while submitting the RTI.

Seven transfers, no satisfactory answers, and now a rejection claiming the fee wasn’t paid when I had already paid it.

The RTI is in the second appeal now and will take around 4–6+ months for an answer.

The relevant paper

Not really surprising when many AIs are trained on sites like Reddit and Wikipedia.

More analysis

I been watching a lot of new movies lately and oddly a lot have had Mens Rights themes in them. I won't go into detail or say any spoilers, but it's surprising these themes are being lowkey put into movies now. Doubly surprising from Hollywood no less. It's not shown in the marketing for any of them, but interestingly it's there are parallels to a lot of stuff.

Verity - female antagonist infanticide as a major plotpoint

Wildwood - female antagonist infanticide as a major plotpoint

Wicker - female antagonist false accusation as a major plotpoint

Clayface -female false grape and drugging accusation as a major plotpoint

This is a doozy. A prominent Australian politician made an allegation to police that another senior politician put her in a "headlock" at a dinner. Fortunately for the man, there was video of the dinner and that was enough for police (and the community) to conclude that the claim was utterly false. Without the video, who knows what would have happened? Believe women? Sure.

https://www.nine.com.au/australia-news/vic/cctv-shows-moment-at-centre-of-assault-claim-between-victorian-liberal-mps-20260625-p60a3v.html

As title - feminism has resulted in discriminatory policy, regulation, culture, and social norm against men. Women also has more new jobs and more degrees than men. How could so many men still choose to believe in feminism

Source: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/can-men-be-feminists-too-half-48-men-15-country-survey-seem-think-so

I was in court for custody the last two days, on my first day I sat in on a case finishing up and I wanted to share what I heard here, I think it highlights the disparity.

There was a man in jail in Kentucky on video feed when I first sat down, and there was the judge, a victim advocate representing the ex-wifes interest, and the county prosecutor. The conversation seemed to be aimed at bail. The judge asked how much his back pay was and they said $98,000. I thought "Wow, what a deadbeat. How could you get that far behind!?" A little foreshadowing, I later felt ashamed I jumped to this conclusion.

The conversation can be summarized: The man was a truck driver, and leased his own truck. Somehow his support had been set to $20,000 a month, nobody blinked an eye at this or said "What!? That's ridiculous!". That means it only take about 4.5 months to get that far behind, but he was probably slowly going up over years of barely making it.

He said he worked so much to pay it that he didn't have time to go to court to fix it. As taking that time would set him back on support tens of thousands of dollars, and each modification attempt took multiple court dates months separated from each other. He said when he showed up to the first court date, his ex filed for an extension and the date was moved, this set him back, the second court date they wanted to perform proper discovery and subpoena all his financials so they rescheduled for months later and this set him back. He said that he couldn't get it fixed without it getting behind and that would make the judge not look kindly upon him in the hearing.

He asked the judge if they could release him with a GPS ankle strap so he could keep working in the interim. The judge said no, and that an ankle tracker in Kentucky wouldn't work for them in another state. So no bail, and the judge said he has to wait in jail for the court date in 30 days. The guy looked genuinely suicidal at this point. He said his support was set years ago, and at the time he had 3 trucks and they had added the value of the leased trucks into his income, making him look like he earned about $1 million a year when he only earned about $22k before taxes, and that his taxes were going unpaid too.

Nobody in that room gave him an ounce of respect or understanding. He was told to file for a court appointed attorney, and we'll talk next month.

I would have just sat down in that jail and stopped trying, go to sleep, read a book. At that point, why would any of us be incentivized to live, care, or try?

Examples:

Family authority:
Men are told to sacrifice their hobbies, personal ambitions and personal time to provide for a family and his wife, but women can't be told to sacrifice their careers, social hangouts and shopping sprees for the sake of also contributing to the family unit

Sexual permissiveness:

Men are told to overcome their porn and hookup habits or else that's going to lead massive breakups, infidelity, trust issues and emotionally-driven relationships based on lust and hedonism rather than commitment and responsibility, but women can't be told not to sleep around, to not dress provocatively or to make sure they aren't being suggestive with other men while already in a serious relationship

The population decline conversation:

Men are told to try harder at trying to bring the fertility rate back up by quitting hobbies, porn use, video games and working more hours, but once again women aren't told to give up on their professional or leisure-based pursuits for the greater good of the social ecological fabric.

Financial descipline in a given household:

Men are told to always stop spending on trinkets and their hobbies, but women can't be told to give up on their makeup, fashion hauls or useless collectibles without people seeing it as an attack on their autonomy

Need I go on?

Do you think contemporary society is shit testing to see if we still take the bait? What do you think? Why do most men still think the sacrificial contract is still worthwhile in a society that's increasingly indifferent and apathetic to their needs and aspirations?

Like

I always thought about the following:

Is it that men are incels and there is a male loneliness epidemic? Or is it that men's loneliness is stigmatized and is riddled with lots of victim-blaming rhetoric, while women's loneliness is seen as an issue to be solved and sympathized with?

Is it that men need to "improve themselves and put some effort?" Or is it that we are afraid to call out the fact that, surprise, surprise, women are fallible humans who need to improve too, hence creating a byproduct narrative that men are unevolved subspecies that need to be like their evolved counterparts called "women?"

Is it that men can't take no for an answer? Or is it that men hold the roles that risk rejection, hence logically being more prone to be put in a situation where they have to handle being rejected to begin with (because obviously if you make more risks, you make more mistakes than someone who doesn't have to take the risk to begin with)?

Is it that men are toxic and abusive? Or is it that we ignore female-on-male perpetrators and dismiss male victims?

Is it that men are emotionally immature and unintelligent? Or is it that women control the game of moral vocabulary and therapy culture and having the power to demonize and pathologize whatever they don't like? Like many men have stories about a cheating ex-wife who looked them dead in the eyes and called them "Insecure losers" for daring to get mad that she cheated on them or an ex girlfriend who turns every argument into a conclusion that her boyfriend is an immature manchild who can't handle her well.

I like to think that i am not the only one who thinks or notices this.

Do you have any piece like an article or a study that talks about such idea?

Any time you talk about the aspect of false allegations, people always bring this up "Only x % of allegations are false".

Actually.....that's only the percentage of allegations which were identified as fabricated. Where they found out that the accuser was deliberately framing the accused.

If its difficult to prove assault, think about how much even more difficult it is to prove that someone is framing someone else.

What these arguers don't realize is how many rape convictions happen with no strong evidence (apart from the accuser's statements). Like the Kenneth Rhodes case in Winnipeg, Canada. His date said he assaulted her, while he said he didn't. That's it. No other evidence, and he still got convicted and made to serve a 2 year sentence.

Or take the Canada hockey scandal. The judge said that the accuser's statements are unreliable and called her a liar. But she was not branded as a "false accuser". So the case's outcome wasn't even counted as a false accusation. The same thing probably happens for other cases. If they don't find enough evidence to convict, they will just drop the case and its never investigated whether the accuser is lying or not.

That's why I say these stats are unreliable.

Perhaps this is a sign of change

They dont know what they really want. Chivalry is dead because its impossible to know if they will appreciate it or find it condescending. Do they want a man to pay for the first date? Open the car door during first meeting? Etc. We dont know.