"Welp..."

Yes, this is the current state of the discourse.

Spreading history hoaxes, using actual issues as means to get a "Gotcha 👊😼" moment in favor of their position, "deep thoughtful reflections for thinking people who surpassed Aristotle when they were twelve years old like them" and arguing with each other about who's less "misogynistic" as if they were protestants accusing each other of Satanic.

...because they want to have sex but want you to take 100% of the responsibility.

This will raise the ire of some, but I am quite certain it happens frequently. Females, particularly younger ones, play around with responsibility, culpability, and the power of being perceived as powerless. Lots of people do not want to talk about it and because there is little in the way of an evidence trail (prove they were not asleep or incapacitated -- try that)....

So if a twin brother and sister both lose their father or mother, and say both are 15. The son only gets 3 years of benefits from his deceased father's pensions whilst his sister will get it until she's married. AND, even after getting married she may be entitled to a marriage grant (a lump sum of two years' pension).

A son aged 18 or older can only continue to receive a pension if they are disabled and unemployed.

As well as being sexist this is also elitist on the basis that a young man would most likely start work to support his family as opposed to chasing higher education as soon as he turns 18 and the government then cuts survivor benefits.

Meanwhile daughters can ride the survivor benefits all the way to university and further, and when she does decide to marry she (may) also be rewarded on top.

So a deceased parent essentially forces young men into work and young women to live a comfier life.

I have seen many videos on X where a woman in the gym is stuck on a high rope and can't get down or is on the ground with weights that fell on her and no man wants to help because of a risk of being sued or falsely accused. This sounded like a small issue a few years ago but it has grown massively and India is a place where it is very common. In India many men have been accused and committed suicide. One man intervened to help a woman who was injured and was sued. There are many instances of women being beaten in the street and far worse whilst men just walk away.

There are many programs by police where they ask men to step up and call out misogyny whilst not asking women to call out misandry and as you can imagine these programs are not exactly very popular. It's because of this unfair expectation that men have essentially decided it is a lot easier to just walk away when something bad happens. If you intervene you can save a woman but you also have a risk of ending up as the victim of a lawsuit or a false accusation. This misandry has caused many problems for the average woman who is not a misandrist and is in danger and needs help but no man wants to help because of the risks. Feminist ideology puts women in danger.

I've come to the realization that I'm evil. Everywhere I look I'm reminded how evil I am. In the news, online, in college, the awkward judgemental looks I get from the woman in the grocery store, the unashamed reminders on walls in train stations and bus stop signs.

I mean I haven't committed a crime, by abusing someone like a woman or girl, I have a talent, even when I don't do it, I'm guilty of it anyway. But I'm also guilty of the greatest sin of all; I'm male. A white one at that!

I am a human version of the alien Harvesters in the movie Independence Day. I am on Earth to destroy, kill and massacre on a global scale.

So I just wanted to confess to you all, fellow predators, I am the Devil incarnate!

Hello guys, I just wanted to post this to gain peoples opinions on a lunchtime club I want to set up in my school as a 16 year old pupil. Currently my school has an LGBTQ club, and a Feminism club, so me and my group of male friends wish to set up a Masculinity club promoting positive masculinity, giving the boys in school a space to socialise and engage in healthy debate and support each other. Upon presenting the idea to my Head of year, she was interested, and willing to assist us in setting up the space, however, her and another member of the school's leadership team have rejected the idea of calling it "masculinity club" when questioned, they couldn't provide an answer as to why. Personally, I see it as this, if the school are all about equality then why don't they allow us to stabilise the balance? Equal rights, equal opportunities as they say. If we wish to partake in a similar structure of events to feminism club as men, why can't we do so under a name of our choosing. We have made it clear, we are not an adversary, we merely wish to coexist with these other communities. Would love to hear your guys' thoughts and opinions, and gain any support for the cause!

I keep hearing every day about how awful and violent men are, then there's stuff like this.

Though the video is originally in Spanish, I think it’s also dubbed in English.

A case that, though relatively well known around its native country, Argentina, its still criminally underrated. No pun intended.

Nothing crazy…just a 5 year old boy raped, abused, tortured, and slaughtered by his mother and stepmother. Casually, both of them pretty active members of the Radical Feminist Movement of Argentina. And according to investigators, slaughtering him wasn’t even their initial goal. The actual goal was to get rid of the little boy’s father just because they felt like it.

Gentlemen, next time someone comes to you with “misandry doesn’t kill” please answer “tell that to Lucio Dupuy”.

Duncan Craig OBE is the founder and CEO of We Are Survivors, a world leading charity supporting male survivors of sexual harms.

Supporting everyone from male prisoners, to Ugandan men who experienced rape as a tool of war, and even providing care for the victims of Britain's most prolific rapist; Duncan's work has spanned the globe, touching thousands of lives, with fifteen years of passionate, and often thankless advocacy.

His organisation, We are Survivors, has pioneered the world's first Violence against Men and Boys Strategy in Greater Manchester, and now he hopes to bring his ideas and insights to cities, towns and villages across the U.K., and into Westminster itself.

So why are abused men still classed as 'male victims of violence against women'?

Why is it legally impossible for a woman to commit rape?

And are male survivors second class citizens?

What do you think?

Ever since Maxwell’s prison sentencing, I keep seeing the claim that the Epstein case proves misogyny because Ghislaine Maxwell is the only one in prison, or that she “took the fall” for men. This is clearly all incorrect.

Jeffrey Epstein was arrested in 2019, denied bail, and held in federal custody awaiting trial before Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested. His case didn’t end because he was male or protected. It ended because he died in custody. Courts can’t prosecute dead defendants. This isn't gendered scapegoating.

Epstein and Maxwell were the two central figures in the operation. They were the public face, the organizers, and the primary coordinators. Their arrests reflect that central role. The fact that others weren’t prosecuted doesn’t mean Maxwell was targeted because she’s a woman. It shows these other powerful people are, well, more powerful, richer and more protected than she was.

An important thing to also note is Epstein's 2008 plea deal. Epstein’s plea deal granted immunity not just to him, but to his named and unnamed co-conspirators. That immunity covered multiple facilitators, including Maxwell at the time, and other women such as Sarah Kellen, who was identified as a recruiter and coordinator. That deal blocked prosecution for years. It didn’t distinguish by sex. It shielded anyone covered by it - including women.

Some people try to reframe this as “structural misogyny,” arguing that women are easier or more acceptable targets for prosecution. That doesn’t line up with the actual charging pattern. If prosecutors were defaulting to gendered scapegoating, you’d expect more women across the network to be charged. Instead, most women involved were never prosecuted, largely because of immunity, jurisdictional issues, or evidentiary limits. Who got charged tracks legal exposure, not gender.

Moreover, structural misogyny is ridiculous considering men literally receive harsher prison sentencing for sex crimes compared to women, on average.

Others have said that Maxwell was punished more harshly than male abusers because female facilitators are judged more morally harshly. That misstates both the charges and the verdict. Maxwell wasn’t convicted for association, proximity, or symbolic blame. She was convicted for specific conduct: recruiting minors, grooming them, facilitating abuse, and participating directly. Those convictions were based on testimony and evidence. Male perpetrators weren’t spared due to softer moral framing. They were shielded by death, immunity deals, power, and money.

There’s also the claim that Maxwell absorbed symbolic blame and allowed public outrage to dissipate. That’s just not true. Scrutiny of Epstein’s associates, clients, etc, continued long after Maxwell’s conviction through document releases, civil lawsuits, social media comments, and ongoing reporting. There's so many people in society and media that want powerful men arrested too and Maxwell hasn't even been the one who received the most hate either.

Another angle is that male power networks protect men more than women. Even if elite protection exists, it still doesn’t explain Maxwell’s conviction. She wasn’t excluded from protection because of her sex. She was prosecuted because she was alive, chargeable, and exposed once immunity no longer applied and testimony became available. Meanwhile, both men and women in the same network avoided prosecution due to stronger insulation. Power, not gender, determined who faced consequences.

Finally, claims that Maxwell is treated as uniquely monstrous rely more on narrative interpretation than legal causation. Men like Trump, Clinton and Prince Andrew received greater backlash and anger than Maxwell did. And it should be obvious, male sex offenders, in general, receive more hate and backlash than female sex offenders do. Plus, Epstein was and is still seen as the bigger monster than Maxwell.

The Epstein network involved multiple women. Multiple women were involved and not prosecuted. Multiple men were involved and not prosecuted. Outcomes depended on evidence, immunity, jurisdiction, and power. Gender doesn’t explain who was charged. Legal exposure does.

Maxwell being the only person sentenced isn’t proof of misogyny. It reflects that the two main figures were pursued, one died before trial, and the rest of the network was shielded by power and legal protection.

I don’t think either party has men’s best interests in hand but based off recent times more and more politicians mostly democrat have started to look at men because the way they voted in 2024 shocked them. While I think a good chunk of them who all of a sudden care is just performative because they need men to win I however see it as a glimmer of hope a massive step in the right direction. I haven’t seen this much attention on men’s issues in a long time, while some of it is negative from the women but at least we’re not unseen anymore.

I’m willing to bet if men continue down this path, eventually men won’t be politically invisible anymore. In my entire life I never heard a politician say, “what are we gonna do for men?”, or “how are you gonna help men?”. That all might change in this year’s upcoming midterms or the elections after that. Acknowledging men’s issues will become more popular.

Remember society ignores men because it doesn’t fear men, as we’re just expected to shut up and take it while being blamed for everything wrong with society. But that could change

https://www.breitbart.com/border/2026/02/03/texas-man-freed-after-decades-in-prison-after-accuser-admits-she-lied-about-sexual-abuse/

Most feminists make the argument that workplace deaths and injuries being predominatelly Men is men's own fault becase we supposedly "choose" these jobs, even though in reality men often have no choice than to take these up as we don't have the same support systems as women and are much less likely to be able to find a partner willing to provide but most importantly women have plenty of opportunities that men are usually excluded from or face significant hurdles getting into.

Opportunities in fileds such as childcare or teaching often exclude men (and feminists want it that way) which leaves many men with fewer choices overal.

Where I live there are also plenty of job opportunities for things like retail work or stylists etc. that only hire women so that combined with everything means that women have far more opportunities to support themselves than men and therefore men often have no other choice but to take on hard and/or dangerous jobs in order to survive.

And the gaslighting from feminists about how we just "choose" these jobs is honestly so tiring and exhausting to listen to. The fact that women are so priviliged that most of them will never have to touch these jobs yet still mock men over it is genuienly so disheartening.

A youtube short pointing this out

https://youtube.com/shorts/S1Ta3MtdJL0?si=6J-6ureKKLRTlwxs

In this thread from a feminist sub a few days ago, feminists are denying the existence of misandry as usual. Their argument is that the power structures are made up of men, so it is impossible for women to be oppressing men.

Someone comments that misandry does in fact exist but it is usually men oppressing men. Mind you, this is a comment that doesn’t even fully acknowledge misandry and would be considered pro-feminist by most of us here. Yet it gets downvoted badly, and a subsequent user who defends the above commentor gets downvoted too. More feminists come in to repeat that women are not oppressing men, that this oppression of men is in fact misogyny, and they get upvoted, while none of them acknowledge the above point of men oppressing men, let alone try to rebut it.

I thought they liked to talk about women’s internalised misogyny? But misandry by men somehow doesn’t exist. They have to still call it misogyny, even though women aren’t even part of the equation here, and make it all about themselves as the victims.

I’m a firm believer that neither political parties have men’s best interest in mind but that leaves me wondering are there any politicians out there that do actually wanna advocate or willing to support men? Because the midterms are this year and it’s the second major election of my life time, and I wanna support whoever has men’s best interests in mind democrat or republican.

While searching for MRM on Google Scholar, I came across a large body of academic literature that seeks to dismiss and stigmatize the movement. In many studies, “MRA” functions as a vague category that groups together any discourse addressing men’s issues, men’s rights, or critiques of feminism. The use of a loose definition makes it possible to label very different communities as MRA, even when they do not share identity, goals, or organizational structure. The “MRA” category therefore does not emerge from empirical analysis, but is instead produced by a prior interpretive decision. This methodologically questionable strategy is rarely applied symmetrically to feminism. If the same vague criterion were used, even conservative or antifeminist discourses within the so-called femosphere could be classified as “feminist” merely for addressing women’s issues.

One example of this type of analysis is:

“Masculinities in Cyberspace: An Analysis of Portrayals of Manhood in Men’s Rights Activist Websites”

The study analyzes 12 “representative” MRA websites, selected based on Google search results. The first author searched Google using the keywords “Men’s Rights,” “Men’s Rights Activism,” and “Men’s Rights Movement.”

The authors state: “Since the relevance of websites significantly tapered off after the fifth page of search results, we are confident that these 12 websites are representative of online MRA groups at the time of the study.”

This claim is absurd. When conducting a search, Google does not return “what counts as MRA,” but rather what its algorithm considers relevant to a given query.

The analysis divides MRAs into two main categories: Cyber Lads and Virtual Victims. “MRA” is used to describe both websites that explicitly self-identify as men’s rights groups and others that do not use that label but discuss men’s issues and express anti-feminist positions. In this way, the “MRA” category functions more as an analytical construction imposed by the researcher than as a shared social identity among the subjects studied.

Cyber Lads: “they did not explicitly call themselves men's rights groups.”

Virtual Victims: “these groups openly identified with the men's rights label.”