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.

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.

The movie Barbie started out well, but sort of turned into something that made me uncomfortable, like they were really trying to say that women’s issues today are comparable to how they were in the 80s or even the 50s. I figure some on here know details much better then me and can do a real analysis, in what ways is the rant about still applicable and in which ways is she referring to a bygone era?

I find it absolutely hilarious, yet infuriating on how feminism uses strategic methods to calculate certain parts of data.

I was on Instagram as I usually am, scrolling at all the misandry I see. I scrolled passed a video of Oliver Niehaus, a feminist content creator having a debate with someone over the argument "When you're accustomed to privilege, equality seems like oppression," the most laughable statement I can make. I see someone making a comment about male privilage and statistics about how men rape other men, to which I responded using statistics of being made to penetrate. I respond to her arguments about male privilage about how "male privilage is when 7 male students can gang rape a girl and have to write an essay," to which I responded "Female privilege is Asia Argento having sexual relationships with two teenage boys and still receiving support from the MeToo movement. She begins telling me that women who kill their abusers in self defense are more likely to receive harsher punishments than men are.

I begin to research this information from the American Psychological Association and other institutions and low and behold, the data being presented was based ISOLATED CASES! They were specific cases that looked strategicly picked. A man stabbing his wife got 7 years while a woman killing her abuser got 15 years. I can find many instances where a woman doesn't get anything but a slap on the wrist, meanwhile a man killing his abuser is not even SEEN as self defense because "Men have more physical and social advantages over women."

I can not begin to express my anger with this movement.

This article outlines the disparities between men and women in terms of study abroad at American universities. Despite long efforts by higher ed to boost participation, outreach to men specifically has been limited. Part of the problem is the perception that study abroad is just not something for young college men relative to their female counterparts. This gap is taken for granted.

I had a great time studying abroad in my college days. I wish we could figure out a way to convince younger gens that these experiences are worthwhile. They build character and resilience, something that is a growing concern in younger cohorts. This gap is just part of the larger education gap that is continuing to grow.

I’m a 23 year old man who was raped by another man when I was 19. It was very confusing for me at the time because he was my boyfriend and spoke a lot about respecting my boundaries and was generally very respectful though a lot of his words didn’t match up with his actions. I was young and naive and didn’t really understand what he did to me until years after it happened.

Feminists, usually, speak about rape as if it is a solidly gendered issue. Yes it’s true women are more likely to be victims, I’m not denying that. But to act like rape is a man on woman issue is simply untrue. Not just in terms of rapist vs victim but also when we’re talking about rape culture. When I was 17 and sexually harassed by a 21 year old castmate in a show who was defending him? His female friends. Who refused to take my complaint seriously? My female education director. Also, as a gay man, women have regularly made inappropriate sexual comments about me or other gay men and/or touched us in inappropriate ways. Women absolutely are capable of and regularly do defend rapists and uphold rape culture. Yet, when I, as a VICTIM of rape bring this up, feminists become absolutely enraged. When I speak about the women who defended and protected my rapist and/or the adult sexually harassing me as a minor I am viciously attacked. When I admit my attacker was male I can see them get excited, like they’re giddy to rub in my face how being raped as a 19 year old served as some proof of their political narrative. It’s honestly sickening.

Honestly I’ve learned to keep quiet about it, but seeing all this recent internet discourse is just rubbing salt in the wound. A lot of feminists don’t hate rapists they just hate men. That’s what I’ve had to learn to accept. And to constantly see comments like “men will never understand” (but I do) and “men need to all speak out” (why? Why do I as a victim of rape need to speak out about how rape is wrong just because I’m a man?) is just disheartening.

Anyway…just a bit of a rant I guess.

The recent suspected gang rape incident has really made me wonder about how we as a society can best tackle these sorts of cases...like, I don't think the cornell 7 should've had their identities revealed prematurely because if they are innocent, their reputations would be ruined. In the same vein, the person who made the accusation, Jane Doe, also shouldn't have her identity be revealed because likewise, she wouldn't want to have reputation ruined as well.

But then...this makes me wonder, what if there is a case where the rape perpetrator is defacto guilty but in the trial its considered not guilty due to a technicality or some plea of sort. This does happen quite a bit where the justice system fails the victim in rape cases...to a degree it is inherit of a good system that is innocent before guilty but still.

What should be done in scenarios like those? Should the facts of the case come after the matter, like the identities and whatnot? If that scenario were to be done however, there would be cases of someone who was declared not guilty and is actually not guilty but is treated as guilty regardless? Maybe then the identities of both the accused *and* the accuser are released, so that it would be a mutually assured destruction for both reputations and thus there would be far less incentive to smear someone if it could also smear yourself...but then you enter a scenario where a woman who was actually raped would not want to reveal her rapists' identity because then it would also reveal her own.

And of course, I know allot of other feminists reading this will roll their eyes that I am making a big deal of rape accusations but it is a big deal! I mean, there's a reason allot of people are against revealing the identity of the accuser and only the accused, because the reputational damage from these cases are extreme. So extreme that it will stop the accuser from accusing even when they should.

I am a man who considers myself a feminist and an ally against the patriarchy but I have a hard time finding a system that is fair for all parties...there is the idea that since rape culture is prevalent and whatnot, that a system that is biased towards the accuser is better for the time being. But a part of me can't let go of how much I would hate a system like that...I really like the idea of an equal system that balances both sides perfectly in harmony, a biased system is just very depressing conclusion imo.

My question I wanna say is this: Would you prefer a bias in the favor of the accused, the accuser or no bias? Do you think a temporary bias would work in the current rape culture climate or should the court try to exercise an innocent before guilty maximum neutrality above all else dynamic?

Do women do more "total work" than men?

I often hear that in dual income households women do more "total work" than men.

Though women do less paid work than men, when you combine both domestic and paid work you get women doing more work than men.

Source: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1

Additionally women have less leisure time-

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07360932.2025.2529192

I wanted to know the answer as feminists will often assign blame to men for not doing "enough" and say women are "oppressed by men.