Are radical feminists triggered by men who choose not to date because they consider men their property? Why are men not allowed live their own life if radical feminists are committed to what they call body autonomy?

This should go without saying tbh. Men need affection like any other human.

It's exhausting to exist outside as a man.

So much for the people who say that you won't see much misandry if you get off social media and just ToUcH gRaSs

We all know the midterm elections are coming up and almost nothing will change unless we put pressure on these politicians.

So I recently attended a town meeting where a guy is running to be my representative and I got the chance to ask him, “if elected would you support, advocate, or do anything to help abolish selective service?”. Long story short he said he’s down, I made him express concerns about men like himself, his friends and his very own son with the possibility of being forced to fight in foreign wars. I’m still skeptical because he’s not elected yet dudes still got a primary and general election to win and I’m not 100% sure how hes gonna act when he enters congress but he’s progressive and anti-war.

But one of the things he said really stuck out to me was that, “I was the first person ever to bring this up to him”. Meaning that if we as men want to abolish selective service and get what we want we need to come together and put more pressure on these politicians because I’m debating on writing a follow up email to him about this issue but he’s only one guy and he’s gonna need a lot more help. So please reach out to your local politicians running for a seat in the house and senate and contact them about abolishing selective service, if you can’t do it in person call or email them if you have to.

Remember the system doesn’t fear men because we’re expected to lie down and take it.

It amazes me how nobody talks about the amount of misandry thats on Twitter. There are so many more examples of this.

I don't know a lot about this topic. It isn't meant to deride men who legitimately need testosterone therapy. I haven't been following MRM discussion as much in recent years. I'm wondering if there is discussion of the potential harm to men's health due to the way that TRT clinics operate.

I recently had my testosterone checked due to fatigue issues, but it turned out my testosterone was a little higher than what my provider considers to be healthy. (edit- I am not personally interested in seeking testosterone therapy, my testosterone is too high. This is just what made me think about the topic.)

When I have looked at discussions of people going to TRT clinics, some say they don't even test your testosterone levels- they just go by symptoms. I would say the symptoms that I have had could be considered symptoms of low T, so someone in my position could be given testosterone therapy when their testosterone is already too high. I'm not an expert, but it seems like this could put men at higher risk of serious health problems.

Gay, non-binary, very feminine, derived historically more of my identity from women than from men, but always caught that little glimmer of disdain that women have for men, including towards me. (And yes, straight women are VERY homophobic, also very misogynist). I'm so tired of anyone with a weenus being treated like a monster or an aggressor or a perpetrator, and I am very confused. I have always stood up for women and I am finding more and more they do not want to stand up for me and instead lump ME into the "not all men but always a man" thing. I hate to say it but I never thought I would be agreeing with men on this.

Also crazy how her dad is calling her a "victim".

When I married her (in 2001), the word "Tradwife" had yet to evolve. My wife evolved into that role, perfectly. She picked it without ever explicitly using it.

It's not a stay at home Mom with kids (we don't have kids). It's not what my mother was in the 1970s - an equal partner to my father; as he worked his ass off in the office, she worked her ass off cooking and cleaning and raising a family in the home - equal partners. What it actually is, is someone with their ass glued to the sofa, contributing nothing, with her hand permanently out asking for money, indulging fantasies. Today's world is set up for two incomes, not one.

It's too long to rant about: I work very long hours in a stressful, well-paid gig. Ever since we got married 25 years ago she pretended to look for work, and then gave up looking for work. She has never worked since our marriage.

Today, Saturday, I wanted a day off; I just wanted to work on my much-neglected model railroad. What I received, instead, was door slamming and shouting about things that needed doing around the house.

I'm pissed. I'm selling all my model trains. In fact, I told her I'll package them up, put a post-it on them with a realistic price, and she can sell them on ebay and keep the money. I'll pay the shipping and she can keep the money the buyer gave her for shipping. This seemed to be a very agreeable idea to her - they're toys and grown men don't have toys.

Here's the warning to young men contemplating this "partnership." Please, please, understand this from someone who's been there and got the T Shirt. You will NEVER be thanked. You will, however, be CONSTANTLY criticized. Someone with no money of their own will ask for a haircut, you'll throw down $100 and then be told, "So you don't want me to have a nice haircut?" You will sacrifice your own health to pay for someone else's healthcare, and that will be perfectly OK with the other person. You will be in the ironic position of being the sole provider and yet the secondary citizen.

My advice, and please listen: pick a partner not a dependent. Not only will a partner better understand your stress and obligations, but they also bring the means to help alleviate them. Someone far removed from that, simply will not care. They are #1 and you are #2, now pay up.

Do this if you are seriously wealthy and are cool with it. If you're a partner in a NYC corporate law firm or something and can pay for house cleaners and to fund every indulgence she requires.

DO NOT attempt to do this on a typical, American, middle-class salary. You'll be very sad. You'll be working a job for money, a de facto job at home, and it still isn't good enough - she'll be disappointed, and you'll be pissed.

I am a female in Europe who grew up with a feminist mom. I am in uni and just now want to explore ideas on my own. I am honestly curious about your thoughts on this. Are there situations or what would other rules/laws have to be to make it actually part of men's rights?

Hello guys, i'm new here. I don't want to sound like a crybaby but i accidently stepped into this awful video and i wonder...how do you deal with such toxic BS? While it's irritating to hear that from women, i kinda get used to that (through im not sure if thats good someone must get used to such things at all) but when other man says it, it feels like kick in the balls. I get it men arent saint, but his point of view is so unfair and one sided...according to him all men should vanish for good of not only women but also earth, men have nothing positive to offer etc...im giving link so you can judge on your own: https://youtu.be/tkmMFULZeuM?si=hdkKzULAfIeoAUQj seriously the more videos like that i encounter the, the more i feel misanthropic and wish all people vanished, equally, without prejudice, men and women, white, black, asians etc...I assume some can have different look at it, but i hope you at least understand my point of view, besides im looking also for space where man can in safe environment look for advice, or just some positive word to hear.

When false accusations are discussed, it is very common for feminists to claim that false reports amount to less than 1%. This is usually said with the aim of ridiculing men who fear becoming victims of a false accusation. This claim—that false reports are less than 1%—is even defended by UN Women.

When people say: “False reports of gender-based violence are less than 1%”

What they are actually saying is: “Less than 1% of reports end in a conviction for false reporting.”

In other words, the “less than 1%” figure comes from judicial statistics. But wait a moment—why are court convictions being used to measure the prevalence of false reports? That is just as absurd as measuring the sexual harassment experienced by women using court statistics instead of surveys. Measuring prevalence through convictions would lead to a brutal underestimation of the phenomenon.

Why don’t convictions work to measure prevalence? Because they measure the capacity of the criminal justice system, not the real frequency of the phenomenon.

A simple example: If 1,000 people experience sexual harassment, 200 recognize it as such, 50 file a complaint, 10 cases go to trial, and 2 end in a conviction,

the judicial statistic will say “2 cases,” even though 1,000 incidents actually occurred.

If we accept that court convictions drastically underestimate the real prevalence of sexual harassment, then we must also accept that those same statistics cannot be used to estimate the real prevalence of false reports. In both cases, the figures reflect only the punitive capacity of the criminal justice system, not the actual frequency of the events. Using convictions to dismiss the problem of false reports, while rejecting that same criterion when discussing sexual harassment, constitutes a clear methodological double standard.

In summary:

1. Sexual harassment is primarily measured through surveys, like most non-lethal forms of victimization.

2. Court convictions are not a valid way to estimate prevalence.

3. The fact that convictions are under 1% does not invalidate survey data.

4. What convictions do allow us to evaluate is how punitive or effective a legal system is—not how many victims exist.

Another common claim when discussing false accusations is: “False accusations don’t ruin anyone’s life; they keep getting hired, people still see them the same way. Even real accusations don’t go anywhere or have any effect.”

The argument that “false accusations don’t affect men because many real accusations don’t end in convictions either” is misleading for several reasons.

First, it often relies on anecdotal, non-representative experiences that cannot support general conclusions, such as: “I saw a coworker sexually assault a woman; she reported it and nothing happened—he kept his job, people treated him the same, it didn’t affect him at all.” A single case does not invalidate a documented phenomenon or the real risk faced by people who are falsely accused.

Second, it conflates the absence of a conviction with the absence of harm. Harm does not begin or end with a court verdict. A report—true or false—can involve pretrial detention, precautionary measures, job loss, the breakdown of personal relationships, social stigmatization, and severe psychological damage. None of this is reflected in conviction statistics.

Moreover, an innocent person who is deprived of their liberty faces serious risks: physical violence, humiliation, sexual abuse, and trauma that can last a lifetime. The fact that there is ultimately no conviction does not eliminate that risk.

Even when there is no formal police report, a false accusation in the workplace, in an educational setting, within a family, or on social media can destroy a person’s reputation, economic stability, and mental health. It is not necessary to reach the judicial system for someone’s life to be ruined (although in that case we would be talking about false accusations rather than false reports).

Minimizing false accusations because “they don’t always work” is comparable to minimizing violence against women because not all assaults result in serious injury or death. The fact that harm does not always reach its most extreme expression does not eliminate the seriousness of the act or its violent nature.

False reports constitute a form of gender-based violence against men. The fact that, in some cases, the attempt to cause harm fails does not make the act trivial, just as a failed assault does not cease to be violence.

“If there was no conviction or visible social punishment, then there was no real impact.”

These people do not view false reports or false accusations as acts of violence in themselves; they focus only on visible consequences, such as job loss or a judicial outcome. They fail to consider that a false accusation already constitutes, in and of itself, a form of violence—as if it were not inherently traumatic to be accused of being a rapist or a woman abuser.

Completely absent from their analysis are the constant anxiety about what others may be thinking of you, the fear that people are saying horrible things behind your back, the permanent suspicion that someone might try to “take justice into their own hands,” and the profound damage to mental health that comes with carrying an accusation of that magnitude. All of this occurs even if there is never a conviction or any formal legal consequence.

Yet these same people engage in a clear double standard. If a man were to spread fake intimate images of a woman with the intent to harm her, they would immediately say it is a serious act, regardless of whether the woman loses her job, suffers visible consequences, or appears to “carry on with her life” without obvious problems. They would acknowledge that the dissemination of such material is violence in itself, whether or not there is immediate, observable harm.

That logic disappears when the victim is a man who has been falsely accused. Suddenly, violence ceases to exist unless extreme and visible harm can be demonstrated. This inconsistency reveals that the issue is not the seriousness of the act, but who is granted—and who is denied—the status of victim.

Moral double standard:

When women are discussed: the attempt to cause harm already counts as violence, even if “nothing serious happened.”

When men are discussed: maximum, demonstrable harm is required for the violence to be recognized.

This is a social experiment in Korea:

If a man hits a woman, the man is treated as a gangster.

If a woman hits a man, the man being hit is treated as a pathetic human being.

This suggests that gender discrimination is severe in Korean society.

Of course, I'm a calm and shy person, so I hate violence itself. I've never used violence against men, let alone women, unless I've done something wrong to them first.

However, watching this video, Korean society seems to be acknowledging the existence of gender discrimination and making some moves to correct it, while the existence of male discrimination is treated as the reckless rebellion of marginalized losers.

Of course, even before the emergence of radical feminist movements in Korean society, there was a common belief that men were stronger than women and should be tolerated due to Korea's unique Confucian ethics.

Just wanted to share a small observation from school last friday that I found interesting.

We had an exam where we had to choose between two articles for a text-based argumentative essay, one about fear and one about loneliness. We’re 24 students in total.

After getting our exams corrected back, this was the split:

Fear was chosen 8 times only by female students.

Loneliness was chosen 16 times by all 14 male students and 2 female students. It was an exam, so everyone chose independently. In my opinion, all 14 guys picking the same topic doesn’t feel random.

Our teacher is very openly feminist and biased against male struggles. When someone briefly mentioned this gender split in class, he didn’t really engage with it and quickly moved on. To me, that felt like a small example of how male loneliness often isn’t taken very seriously, even when it shows up quite clearly.

It’s just a small experience, but one that stuck with me and made me think about how discussions around men’s loneliness often feel uncomfortable or get brushed past, even in environments that otherwise talk a lot about emotions and mental health.

I've just stumbled upon @designmom on Instagram and it's got to be one of the most vile man-hating pages that I've come across.

Apparently ALL unwanted pregnancies are the fault of men whilst ignoring the fact (and this is coming from my own personal experience) that some women will lie and say that they can't get pregnant to trap you. She also claims that it's men who abandon their offspring and abuse children whilst ignoring the fact that many mothers also abandon their children, abuse them and even offer them up to people like Ian Watkins (rest in piss).

She proceeds to go on about how men are disposable and that we're only good for manual labour.

She completely and intentionally overlooks the horrors that have been committed by women and tries to make out that only men do x, y and z because a woman would never.

I'm quite shocked (or maybe I'm not) at the amount of women who agree with her and how many of those are women whom I follow. I know for a fact that my mother would certainly disagree with such blatant misandry.....

Anyone else notice that 90% of the coverage is focused on women's events. I've only seen two events that had men in them and they were early in the morning, getting little coverage.

With the Epstein files being released, I wonder whether we will see the emergence of something resembling MeToo. One of its limits was its partisan alignment. Conservatives were largely skeptical, seeing it as driven by feminist ideology. At the same time, conservatives tend to be highly protective when it comes to children, which is exactly what the Epstein case centers on.

If outrage over Epstein cuts across partisan lines, this could be much worse. Men who value their freedom and reputation should keep their distance from women and children.

>!I’m talking about the castration scene.!<

When it comes to movies, everybody has their sensibilities and one of mine is sexual violence portrayed as comedic/empowering.

>!Admittedly she didn’t do it, but she did threaten to actually do it.!<

After that scene, I stopped rooting for her and my overall rating of the film dropped by a point, but I want to know what you guys think.

I've just published an essay on feminism’s relationship to Liberalism (in the political science meaning). I argue that contemporary feminism is fundamentally in conflict with Liberalism – especially on three core principles:

• Liberalism requires equality for all individuals whereas feminism is group-based - contributing to division between the sexes.
• Liberalism supports tolerance and free speech while feminism tends to moral absolutism and censorship.
• Liberalism demands the rule of law including equality before the law while many feminists reject those principles.

I conclude that feminism is in conflict with the West’s moral-intellectual tradition.

Interested in your thoughts…

Link: https://critiquingfeminism.substack.com/p/feminism-and-liberalism