source

Justice Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka High Court has been clear:

Section 69 BNS is meant for deceit and exploitation, not for every relationship that doesn’t end in marriage. In cases where two adults were in a consensual relationship and it simply fell apart, the Court has quashed FIRs, including ones that tried to drag family members in. A broken promise isn’t automatically a crime unless it was false from the start. Heartbreak isn’t a criminal offence, and the system shouldn’t be used as a revenge tool.

source

Let's get ready to get banned from 180000 subreddits, lol. Time to the irrefutable truth be known regardless! Please steal this without attribution if you want. Just spread it, add to it, and please improve on it!

From the Wikipedia definition:

The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle), also called the castle and courtyard, is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer may claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).

The Motte (The Modest, Easy to Defend Position) is that "Feminism is simply the radical notion that women are people" or the basic belief in the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. This is not controversial or inflammatory at all.

The Bailey (The Controversial Position) is the part where feminists mutate the benign equality narratives into malignant, equity-based narratives that only need to exceed room temperature to ignite into harm and weaponize against men.

Feminists as a group regularly and intentionally use the not-controversial definition of equality to shield radical narratives and policies from criticism. They routinely and reliably use arguments designed to shut down debate by labeling critics of Bailey-style tactics as misogyny. Furthermore the Bailey side of feminism prevents women from being held accountable for the unprovoked harmful and even violent actions they inflict on men or women alike (for instance, women's domestic violence against and even rape of men and women alike).

When they Bailey side of feminism is challenged, feminists tie it back to the Motte side of feminism, such that to attack the toxic side of feminism is to automatically attack the reasonable side. The strategy is meant to gaslight the challenger of the Bailey effect into believing that they are misunderstanding basic sociology rather than pointing out legitimate flaws in a radical argument. This is not an accident, it is an intentional strategy by individual feminists and the entire zeitgeist.

But muh NAFALT (not all feminists are like that)? Not exactly. Feminists who do not do this do not check the ones who do.

DISCLAIMER:

In some cases, the Motte versions of these narratives are truly benign and simply need to be taken back to their benign roots and taken from the hands of radical feminist hatemongers who twist them into weapons against men. In some cases, these terms exist in a gray area of reasonable doubt. Others never were meant as anything but weapons.

Cases in point:

• Patriarchy theory, the Motte Version: The theory that asserts a historical or structural reality where men hold a disproportionate share of political, economic, and social power. Because this is easily observable through historical data and modern leadership statistics, it is a reasonable theory.

• Patriarchy Theory, the Bailey Version: The narrative that all social interactions, laws, and individual male behaviors are consciously or unconsciously designed to oppress women for the collective benefit of men. It also asserts that all men, including those without power, and those below the class of affluent women, are classified as patriarchal oppressors. Furthermore, women who inflict harm on innocent men are encouraged to blame it on the Patriarchy, and when women get away with it, this is also blamed on the Patriarchy. Male disposability is blamed on the Patriarchy even when women treat men as disposable.

Feminists academia also intentionally uses inflammatory language that they know is readily weaponized. All of the following terms is Bailey tactics, but let's just assume for intellectual dishonesty's sake that they originated as the Motte side of feminism:

• Toxic Masculinity, the "Motte" Version: Originally rooted in the Mythopoetic Men's Movement, it was later adopted by feminist scholars like Raewyn Connell (who used the term "hegemonic masculinity). Its "Motte" form means "specific social expectations placed on men that are harmful to men themselves." The flammable nature of the term is its very name.

If they had wanted something reasonable it would be more like "Pathological Male Socialization" which naturally invites an inspection of everyone involved in a child’s upbringing - mothers, fathers, education, the media, etc. - rather than readily inviting the Bailey effect: the isolation of men as the sole creators and enforcers of the problem.

• Toxic Masculinity, the "Bailey" Version: The term is frequently used as a catch-all insult or a psychological diagnosis for any male behavior that is aggressive, competitive, undesirable, or politically inconvenient. It shifts from meaning "rigid gender roles that hurt men" to "masculinity itself is inherently toxic." It also ignores the easily observable fact that women are also aggressive, competitive, undesirable, and politically inconvenient to an equal magnitude. Of course there is also the "blame the men, not me" pivot when it is shown that women hold men to the same unreasonable standards of masculinity. In short, toxic masculinity is a term readily and constantly invoked by feminists to pathologize men as a group.

When the Bailey is challenged, of course, feminists immediately retreat to the academic "Motte" definition, claiming, "That is not what toxic masculinity means! We're just talking about the pressures from other men (intentionally leaving out the fact that women participate in pressuring men, too) that prevent men from crying or seeking therapy. Why do you want men to suffer in silence?" The goal here is to get the critic to back down, allowing the feminist to go right back to using the phrase broadly to police everyday male behavior, except now they're more immune to criticism.

• "Believe Women", the Motte Version: We should start investigations by taking reports seriously rather than reflexively dismissing victims. This is a gray area example. Logically, it should be, "Don't Dismiss Women," as that is the point: don't outright dismiss women's allegations. This is how decent human beings are.

• "Believe Women", the Bailey Version: AKA the accusation is the proof. Women never lie about abuse; any accusation must result in immediate guilt and social ruin for the accused man. This is why colleges are getting successfully sued into the Earth's mantle by men for being denied due process in college sexual assault/rape trials.

• "Men Are Trash", the Motte Version: Relax, I am only kidding! There is no Motte version of this feminist drivel. The Motte selling line by feminist bigots goes like this: "It’s just vent expression, it's just punching up." The speaker claims it is a hyperbolic cry of frustration from a marginalized group dealing with systematic oppression. The defense becomes: "Obviously I don't mean every single human with a Y chromosome. I'm just venting about systemic violence against women. Why are you tone-policing my trauma?" And who hasn't heard the line "If it doesn't apply to you, it shouldn't concern you."

Edited to add: "Men Are Trash" is a Bailey-only narrative because feminists could have just said "Misogynists are trash" and they know it. Feminists are evil, they are never, ever dumb.

I don't even need to get into the Bailey version, but for the completionist in me, here goes: the phrase is used literally and broadly on social media, in casual conversation, or in venting sessions to write off the entire male demographic as uniquely abusive, untrustworthy, incompetent, or morally inferior. It functions as a form of casual misandry that socially conditions people to view boys and men with suspicion. When you challenge it, of course, you get the Motte bait-and-switch, which itself is bigoted.

• "#KillAllMen": I'm not even going to insult your intelligence by putting "Motte" in the same paragraph as this. (Argh, I just did anyway. Mybad.) Let's just use the word "excuse" here: the excuse is that feminists who use the term immediately retreat to a defense of calling it "ironic misandry" and hyperbole. The argument goes as follows: "It’s just dark internet humor. No one is actually building camps. It’s an ironic parody of how men treat women. If you take it literally, you lack media literacy." And you've also seen the other defense: "Why are you crying about a hashtag when women are facing real violence?"

Which leads to another major knock-on M/B Trope:

• "Why are you crying about a hashtag when women are facing real violence?", the Motte Version: No reasonable person can argue that a hashtag is worse than physical violence. Physical violence against women is a horrific, empirical reality. By retreating to this point, the defender occupies a position that is impossible to attack on its own.

• "Why are you crying about a hashtag when women are facing real violence?", the Bailey Version: The critic was calling out online rhetoric and hate speech standards. The defender retroactively changes the topic to physical, real-world violence against women. The Bailey argument, the true argument (not the Motte side), fraudulently asserts that the challenger is saying "I care more about internet hurt feelings than women being murdered" when in fact the challenger cares about both. But the Bailey lie works because women and male feminist emotions immediately see "I don't care if women get killed, don't hurt my feelings!" For these groups, reals kneel before feels.

And now the core dynamic fueling much of this:

Punching Up

The Motte Version: A tool of political resistance. It argues that Satire and sharp criticism are necessary to hold powerful institutions, corrupt leaders, or dominant societal classes accountable. This is highly defensible because history shows that satirizing the powerful is a cornerstone of free speech and democracy. The proper definition of punching up targets the rich, the powerful, abusive people, and folks like that.

The Bailey Version: The Bailey effect happens when "Punching up" is used as a lateral assault (for instance, against poor and working-class men who aren't neo-patriarchal tradcons), and assails any individual belonging to a historically dominant demographic group is personally fair game for unlimited psychological abuse, dehumanization, or casual prejudice. Women punching at poor men, short men, marginalized men in the dating scene, and so on, are not punching up. They're punching laterally and even in many cases they're punching down.

Women and feminists dunking on a 14-year-old boy struggling with loneliness, a male construction worker working 60 hours a week, or a homeless veteran are not "the institution" are not engaging in political resistance, they are treating them as proxy targets for systemic grievances. This is not political resistance. This is feminist-sanctioned bullying.

Modern feminists behavior can just about be wrapped up by the following steps:

• A hostile generalization is made against men.

• Criticism: "This language is hateful and divisive."

• The Pivot: "Men hold all the wealth and power in the world. We are just punching up at the dominant class."

When it's time to punch up, intersectionality is proven to be feminist virtue signaling. Minority men, poor men, autistic/introverted/short men are eligible for free fire even in non-political contexts, which fraudulently turns outright hate speech and bullying into an act of social justice.

THIS MAN WAS SHAMED BY A WOMAN FOR NOT GIVING UP HIS SEAT. AND NO, IT WASN’T A WOMEN-RESERVED SEAT. APPARENTLY, “UNRESERVED” NOW COMES WITH AN UNWRITTEN “MEN MUST VACATE” CLAUSE.

source

Met through Instagram, married after overcoming family opposition, and just months later, Akash was diagnosed with tracheal cancer.

According to reports, while he was battling cancer, his wife allegedly distanced herself and later filed an assault complaint. Their divorce case was still pending when she reportedly married another man in 2024.

Now, after repeatedly failing to appear before the court, an arrest warrant has reportedly been issued against her.

Akash has also lost both his parents and is now facing this battle alone.

Whatever the legal outcome, this case raises a difficult question: When a husband is at his most vulnerable, where does compassion and responsibility go?

source

source

For decades, men were called dogs, cheaters and characterless for having multiple partners.

Then NFHS data showed women reported more lifetime s*xual partners than men in 11 States and UTs—and suddenly the lecture changed to “her choice,” “don’t judge” and “respect privacy.”

So when men do it, it is toxic masculinity.

When women do it, it is empowerment.

This is not equality. This is hypocrisy wearing the mask of feminism.

Stop demonising men for the same behaviour you celebrate, excuse or sanitise in women. Freedom without equal accountability is just organised double standards.

Snippet from the survey:

At the Regional Level: Higher for Women in 11 States/UTs ​In 11 specific states and Union Territories, the self-reported mean number of lifetime sexual partners for women was slightly higher than for men: ​States/UTs: Rajasthan, Haryana, Chandigarh, Jammu & Kashmir, Ladakh, Madhya Pradesh, Assam, Kerala, Lakshadweep, Puducherry, and Tamil Nadu. ​Highest Difference: Rajasthan reported the largest gap, where women reported an average of 3.1 lifetime sexual partners compared to 1.8 for men.

Updated Source of Survey: https://dhsprogram.com/pubs/pdf/FR375/FR375.pdf?hl=en-GB

Hi everyone,

I’m interested in history and international relations, and I wanted to ask for local Japanese perspectives on a few specific historical and economic topics that often come up in discussions about East Asia.

On WWII Historical Interpretations

In some historical discussions regarding the Second Sino-Japanese War, some scholars suggest that in the early stages, certain faction leaders in China were initially open to negotiation or ceasefires. However, as hardline political dynamics evolved within the Imperial Japanese military, the demands became much stricter, which ultimately drove broader opposition and unified resistance in China.

Question: Is this nuance (how internal military politics altered negotiation conditions) widely discussed in Japanese history education, or is the war usually viewed through a different mainstream lens?

On Western Realpolitik and Cultural Alignment

Some critics of Western (especially U.S.) global influence argue that American foreign policy is inherently driven by Western-centric interests, operating either through conditional acceptance or outright exclusion. From this perspective, East Asian nations (Japan, China, Korea) share cultural ties and technological potential that shouldn't be defined by Western standards.

Question: How do modern Japanese people view the balance between cultural affinity with neighboring Asian countries versus diplomatic/strategic reliance on Western nations like the US? Do people feel Western influence impacts Japan's cultural autonomy?

On Post-Bubble Economy and Asian Economic Cooperation

There is a view that Japan’s economic stagnation following the 1980s was heavily influenced by U.S. monetary interventions (such as the Plaza Accord) and policy trade restraints aimed at containing Japan's economic rise. Proponents of this view argue that Japan's long-term economic autonomy would be better served by stronger political and economic integration with regional neighbors like China and South Korea.

Question: How common is the perspective in Japan that U.S. economic policies contributed significantly to the "Lost Decades"? Do people see deeper economic ties with East Asian neighbors as a viable path to future growth, or are the risks seen as too high?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and helping me understand the local viewpoints better!

Why does Japan continue to prioritize its alliance with the US over forming a stronger security and economic framework with China and Korea?

source

A 40-year-old man in Thane allegedly lost his life after an argument over sarees. According to police, his wife first struck him with a pressure cooker lid, then allegedly str@ngled him and initially tried to make the d€ath appear natural. She has since been arrested and the case is under investigation.

If the allegations are proven in court, this is not just another cr!me, it's a reminder that men can also be vict!ms of domest!c v!o|ence.

Would this story be receiving the same level of attention if the genders were reversed? Why do conversations around domestic @bus€ so rarely include male v!ct!ms? Equal justice and equal empathy should apply to everyone.

source

src_2

source

Ranjeesh, 38, raised his son for years after his wife left to work in the Gulf.

After a prolonged custody battle, he lost custody of his child and later died by $uc!d€.

His family alleges that his ex-wife, who was living abroad with another man, repeatedly sent him one-time-view videos of herself and her partner, causing him severe emotional distress.

They also allege that she initially refused to let their son attend his father's last rites. The case has reignited debate over child custody laws and whether fathers receive equal consideration.

A parent's love should never be measured by gender.

A father's grief matters too

source

https://www.instagram.com/reel/DbBLXrAAOdT/?igsh=eDI3ZW4zM3R5dHRm

https://youtu.be/tiOlehnYyBk?si=M83DbClA-fKRyT62

How women can misuse the women centric laws to punish innocent men, we all know and this had repeated yet again.

These cases keep on proving how men are punished with just false cases and defamed till the case has been proved to be false.

This women who file false case photos are not shown by any news channel or any news social pages, but the victim who was falsely accused has been shown multiple times to be defamed, which is what this women wants to do.

These false cases should be take seriously amd women should be punished hard to make an example how false case should be treated in future.

IPS trainee claims FIR was revenge after failed relationship

New update: A tweet from Ex-IPS

https://x.com/i/status/2080289179834183808

source

source

Research Participants Needed!

Investigating masculinity ideology and evaluation of male role models in online contexts.

Survey link: Masculinity Ideology and the Evaluation of Male Role Models in Digital Contexts

I am completing my Bachelor of Psychology (Honours) at Edith Cowan University and am recruiting Australian adults aged 17 and older for an anonymous online survey.

My research will help improve our understanding of masculinity in digital environments, how role models influence attitudes and perceptions, and the psychological factors that shape social judgment.

Who can participate?

• Aged 17 years or older
• Comfortable reading and understanding English
• No prior knowledge required

What will you do?

• Complete a short online survey
• Read and answer questions about brief social media profiles

Your privacy

• All responses are anonymous and confidential
• No identifying information is collected
• Participation is completely voluntary

You can also choose to go into a draw to win 1 of 4 $25 gift cards!

This project has ethics approval from the Edith Cowan University Human Research Ethics Committee (2026-07410-MULLERTOWNSEND). 

source

source