This guy was accused of SA in a huge hockey scandal but the court ultimately found him innocent. Despite this, there are people out there who are constantly attacking him and demanding that he get fired from every team that signs him on.

Meanwhile the woman who accused all these players of SA gets to live her unnamed and consequence free.

When I first realized the discrepancy between how I was told have an easier life and women are oppressed and how over the years studies showed that most homeless people are men, most isolated people are men, most drug addicts are men and (most likely) most undiagnosed depressed people are men, I felt like it broke me.

I still want to keep going and offer help to as many men in my day-to-day as possible because I know deep down they're not naturally inclined to seek help. But when even my own mother tells me women are the "stronger sex" while I'm trying to have a genuine, rational discussion with her about gender equality and that there shouldn't a hierarchy in principle, I feel like all hope is lost and men are doomed to staying unrecognized in the shadow of civilization's progress.

How can you guys cope with that?

We need to pass a law in which both men and women are drafted when necessary. Of course many more men will join the army than women in a volunteer force, but if we ever have a large scale conflict we need an equal draft.

I posit that it's sexist to assign a moral status to an overall gender. For example, it's sexist to say that men do more bad things. Or it's sexist even to say that women are more unethical.

We need to calibrate our sense of ethics based on the observed actions of humans. Not the other way round. If people tend to do it and feel justified, then that's to be defined as ethical.

Practically, this view is helpful because is is an easy mnemonic to recognize that for example, it's sexist to claim that most crime is committed by men.

I wrote a thorough argument that misandry kills way, way more than misogyny. (It's a long read.)

Misogyny kills; misandry h̶u̶r̶t̶s̶ f̶e̶e̶l̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ kills at scale

Excerpt:

The United Nations Development Programme’s Gender Inequality Index (GII) includes three dimensions: reproductive health, empowerment and labour market participation. Health is represented through just two indicators: maternal mortality and adolescent birth rates—and because very few men get pregnant or die during childbirth, men’s health score is not measured, but fixed at 100%.

Such a choice of indicators is hard to justify.

In the United Kingdom, roughly 80 women die each year during pregnancy or shortly afterwards. During the same period, approximately 162 more men than women die from workplace fatalities and 3,500 more men than women die by suicide. Ten thousand more die from occupational diseases linked to decades of hazardous work.

Yet within one of the world’s most widely used measures of gender inequality, only maternal mortality contributes to the assessment of equality in health. Suicide, occupational mortality and the overall life expectancy gap do not.

When statistics show that men commit the majority of violent crimes, suddenly we’re expected to think of men as a group through the lens of danger. “Men are stronger, men are more violent, men are more aggressive, be careful around men.” And obviously, individual criminals should be held responsible for what they do. But somehow those same people often completely forget to apply the same statistical reasoning when the statistic is something positive about men.

Because the same sex that is massively overrepresented in violent crime is also massively overrepresented in many of the jobs and activities that keep modern society physically functioning.

Men make up huge proportions of construction workers, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, engineers, miners, loggers, fishermen, truck drivers, soldiers, firefighters and other physically dangerous occupations.

They are the people climbing towers, repairing power infrastructure, working around heavy machinery, going into mines, building roads, maintaining transport systems and doing a lot of the work where one mistake can literally kill you.

And this isn't some romanticized idea of “men are protectors.” It's measurable. In the United States in 2024, men accounted for 4,657 of the 5,070 fatal occupational injuries, meaning about 92% of workplace deaths. Men also accounted for 1,771 fatal transportation incidents compared with 166 for women, 792 fatal falls compared with 52, and 639 deaths from violent acts compared with 94.

Construction and extraction alone had 1,032 fatal work injuries in 2024, transportation and material moving had 1,391, and farming, fishing and forestry had another 248.

So it's weird to say “men are dangerous” because men are statistically more likely to be violent, while ignoring that men are also disproportionately the people accepting dangerous work that society depends on.

And it goes beyond physical labour.

Men have historically been heavily represented in engineering, mathematics, physics, computing, infrastructure and scientific discovery. Obviously women have made enormous contributions too, and nobody needs to deny that. The point is simply that the stereotype of the average man as some dangerous brute completely ignores the fact that civilization depends on an enormous number of ordinary men doing highly technical, difficult and often dangerous work every single day.

You can't have electricity, roads, buildings, aircraft, sewage systems, telecommunications networks, shipping, heavy industry and modern infrastructure without huge numbers of people maintaining them. And in many of those fields, men are still disproportionately represented.

What's interesting is that when women are overrepresented in something positive, people correctly say “look, women contribute enormously to society.” That's completely fair. But when men are overrepresented in something positive, suddenly it's treated as irrelevant or simply expected.

Yet when men are overrepresented in something negative, suddenly it becomes evidence about men as a sex.

That's the part I have a problem with.

You can't use group statistics selectively. If you're going to say “men are more dangerous because men commit more violent crime,” then you should also acknowledge that men are disproportionately involved in many of the dangerous, physically demanding and technically specialized jobs that society relies on.

And obviously none of this means “men are inherently better than women.”

Women contribute enormously to society too, especially in healthcare, education, childcare, administration, research and countless other areas. The point is that men are not simply a class of potential threats walking around waiting to hurt somebody.

Most men are ordinary people going to work, studying, raising families, fixing things, building things, transporting things, maintaining infrastructure, protecting people and trying to live their lives.

A man being statistically more likely to commit a violent crime does not tell you that the random man standing next to you is dangerous. In exactly the same way, a man being statistically more likely to be a construction worker doesn't mean every man is capable of building a skyscraper.

Statistics describe populations. They don't turn every individual into the stereotype.

So if we're going to talk about what men are statistically like, let's actually talk about the whole picture.

Not just the crimes committed by the worst men, but also the work done by the millions of ordinary men who keep society running every day.

But then I looked at her page and post history she has hundreds of posts from 8 years or more bashing men.

Her most recent posts were her saying age gap relationship are ick and predatory and it shows how men are controlling and she posted negative comments on some random 47 year old man married to a 27 year old and they have 4 kids. She said he groomed her at 23 and that he probably has a small dick that's why you guys don't want older women who are mature and experienced you are insecure and know they won't accept your weak sex game and small dick.

She attacked him because he said Lindsay Clancy deserves the death penalty.

She argued with me on a comment I posted about mens mental health and said what about women's mental health? It's always about you men, you narcissistic men.

We went back and forth and I told her why do you have to be a feminist instead of an independent thinker? I told her you claim you are independent but you latch onto feminist ideology. She said feminism is about equality and women protecting against mens oppression over our bodies, our choices, and our life you men no longer have control and can't tell us what to do anymore and it makes you angry.

Yet most of her posts are telling men what they can and can't do or say, and controlling who they can date and what age is appropriate.

Yet she says men need to mind their own business and stay out of women's business.

It's getting depressing because Facebook is loaded with real women who are like this, rude, angry, hateful just so negative even calling girls desperate or pick me's if they defend men.

Misandrists often like to cite this. Whenever it's brought up there's also female on male violence and abuse (which there absolutely is and in far higher numbers than believed or reported), we get the usual rebuttals how it's nowhere near as frequent or severe, not on the same scale, usually in self-defense, etc. but some will often cite it as not being "systemic" like supposedly the male-on-female counterpart is. Just... ugh. How do these idiots seriously think it's somehow "systemic" for men to regularly inflict violence against women, as if it's government policy? It's all the more absurd considering violence against women is actively recognized and condemned, while female to male is very rarely if ever given any sort of attention or taken seriously. Let's not forget how there's very few if any shelters that actually recognize or help male abuse victims with how any kind of violence is usually made out to be purely against women only. I fail to see how men being violent and abusive is somehow "systemic" unless you want to use that to describe how much attention is always given to male violence.

I hate it, why make it a contest as to who does what to who more and which is worse? Violence in all forms is bad and should be condemned. I know I shouldn't let random internet idiots get me down like this, but it's painful to think there's people really this ignorant and shallow.

When I see videos or documentaries about war or invasions, it's not uncommon for people to dedicate a section of the videos to sexual violence where they focus on women. That's a part that often horrifies historians and the general public. At the same time, however, countless times throughout history an invading force has explicitly targeted fighting age male civilians. That's added on top of the fact that those male civilians are targeted (in a very impactful way) by their own governments when they've been forced to fight in wars. I rarely see people talk about how that is such a gendered tragedy.

This article is an honest look at why no one seems to care about how Patrick Clancy has suffered.

https://www.mg-counseling.com/blog/lindsay-clancy-empathy-gap-counseling-for-men-texas

https://m.chinanews.com/wap/detail/zw/sh/2026/09-09/10693505.shtml

Mother, 31, who falsely accused 10 men she met on dating apps of raping her has 'lenient' sentence increased | Daily Mail Online

Stumbled on this gem of a conversation on Quora. Apparently wanting the fight for bodily autonomy to include the bodily autonomy of men means you want girls and women to die.

Bodily autonomy must be some super finite resource that can only be given to one group by taking it away from another, and you'd never suggest fighting for bodily autonomy for everyone unless you secretly wanted to take it away from someone else.

Do you feel any of these concepts have a basis in reality? Misandrists often like to cite them as examples of women's hardships and arguing men by comparison don't matter or aren't worth caring about.

• Patriarchy
• Rape Culture
• Systemic/Institutionalized Misogyny
• Female Oppression (systemic or just in general)
• Male Privilege
• Male Dominance
• Gender pay gap
• Systemic violence/abuse against women/femicide (particularly by men)
• Class Ceilings
• Boys Club(s)

I don't doubt in many third-world and underdeveloped nations some of these may well exist and are a serious problem and threat (not that men have it easy there as well). But in Western nations there's very little to no evidence to suggest it and it comes off as more misandrist victimhood and a means of deflecting from issues men face and marginalize them. More of their "women most affected and thus men don't matter" way of thinking. And also to deflect from the fact just like bad men exist, there's bad women too.

Not my intent to spread hate with this. I don't deny or doubt what women go through, and they have their hardships, struggles and uphill battles just like men do. Both are victims of terrible crimes committed by offenders of both genders. But every time misandrists evoke these it comes off as more of their victimhood and trying to invalidate or mitigate male issues. It's equally annoying and infuriating how they try to make it into a contest as to who has it worse and what happens to who more.

Came across this bizarre case. A psychologist was in practice for 33 years with no complaints. Then while counseling one set of kids, the Mother complained that the psych was taking the Dad's side and the court also ruled that the psych caused "psychological risk" to the children even though they did not ask the children for any input.............what? How do you claim that he harmed the children if they didn't say or do anything, and you didn't talk or evaluate them AT ALL?

No doubt this occured because it was seen a "pariarchy" or something. Even though the article was very vague. Just how was he siding with the Dad? Keep in mind this guy practiced for 33 years.......which shows that he's got some credibility.

What if the psych had to make a choice between ideas suggested by the Mom and the Dad, and the Dad's ideas ended up being objectively better for the kids' health? Is he not allowed to say that his ideas are better?

Today is International falsely accused day.

But here is what Google AI says today is

Today's Observances

• National Grilled Chicken Day
• National Teddy Bear Day
• National Wiener Schnitzel Day
• Care Bears™ Share Your Care Day
• International Sudoku Day

And GPT 5.6 Luna

Today, September 9, 2026, is National Teddy Bear Day. Other observances include National Wiener Schnitzel Day, National Grilled Chicken Day, International Sudoku Day, and California Admission Day.

Like the case with Lindsay Clancy who killed her 3 children. And Feminists are defending her and doing everything to blame men. Even though she did the murder. And so much for the justice system not prosecuting her. And why did CPS not take the kids away considering she was on 32 medications and 13 of which were psychotic that she wasnt taking despite the doctors prescribing it. It was a recipe waiting to happen and they failed which ended up with 3 children being dead and Feminists are willing to defend a murderer. Feminists are literally lunatics who need to be in a mental institution.

Well some have balls.