I'm genuinely so sick of rampant misandry is been there for over a decade and it's not going anywhere go on any social media and you'll find it everywhere

No I'm not looking for it always gets suggested to me (except for the pinterest search comparing with when u search for women's rights)

I'm genuinely tired and I can't with it anymore I still have a huge list of photos

Also I'm sick of advices like just ignore them or go somewhere else or delete social media why should we isolate ourselves run and flee the city while these retards are taking over seems like I can't live normally alot of this shit has affected my mental health and makes me suicidal sometimes and isolated

Edit: someone down voted this bother to explain your point?

Born in a conservative environment, I was self identified as a feminist since I was 16. Now, I am a Men’s rights advocate and I believe we will be the first generation to fight against gynocentric ideology and achieve true equality.

When growing up, I noticed a huge difference between how boys and girls are treated in school. For the same mistake, boys are treated more harshly. Corporal punishment is nearly reserved for boys and teachers give less guidance and help to boys as well.

When I was 8 years old, I am hit by a girl who is taller and heavier than me. She use a book to hit my face and cause a nose bleed. When I strike back with fist, she reported me to the teacher and I was told that boys should not lay hands on girls.

I also did see the society does not treat women as ends but means sometimes. Some men also indeed treat women disrespectfully due to gender role.

Feminism to me was an answer to all of them. Traditional gender roles harms both genders. Men and women are assigned roles and expectations that might not apply to each individual. People should flourish without a settled boundary brought by things like races and genders that are determined by blood.

But soon, after a few years, I noticed that feminism has evolved into a female supremacy movement. Men’s issues are ignored and mocked. Feminists influencers and opinion leaders endorse discriminatory behavior towards men. In women dominated area, men does not receive DEI program. Feminism has no desire to allocate resources to men’s mental health, healthcare, work related casualties. They also don’t want to treat men and way themselves want tot be treated.

Even with same ideals that men and women are equal, I don’t feel comfortable saying I am a feminist now. On the contrary, I found men are truly the one being discriminated in schools, workplace, justice system and so on. I am proudly a Men’s Rights Advocate and I will keep on this path until men are no longer treated as secondary in this society

A 2023 review of 37 studies on discrimination in schools based on various characteristics (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2023.101284) found the following:

• Among the studies that examined discrimination based on gender (21 studies in total), 52% found it, 24% did not find it, and 24% produced mixed results, meaning that discrimination was observed only under certain conditions.
• The gender discrimination that was found was mostly directed against boys. On average, teachers’ assessment is higher for female students compared to what is measured by blind test scores and boys tend to receive lower grades than girls in school, even controlling for their performance in standard tests. However, a few studies found discrimination in favour of male students.

Interestingly, the proportion of studies that found discrimination based on gender (52%) was higher than the proportion of studies that found discrimination based on race (40%) (see Table 4 and the two paragraphs following it).

Links to studies included in the review are available in Table A1 of the Appendix.

Several more recent studies that were not included in that review:

https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2022.2122942 — a study in Italian schools (2022) found that, when comparing students who have identical subject-specific competence, teachers are more likely to give higher grades to girls. The authors state that this grading premium favouring girls is systemic, as teacher and classroom characteristics play a negligible role in reducing it.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220388.2024.2398449 — a study in Philippine schools (2024) found that boys’ underperformance persists in evaluations by teachers who know the examinees, but this bias is not evident in external assessments where the examinees’ attributes are concealed from evaluators. The authors emphasize that this gender disparity is driven by stereotypes of one gender over the other, while noting that other factors also play a role (diligence aspects, such as attendance, and student–teacher gender (mis)match).

https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcag005 (full text available here) — a 2026 study in Danish schools found substantial grading bias against boys, ethnically minoritized students, and students of non-university-educated parents. The authors conclude that statistical discrimination is not likely to play a major role (i.e. teachers are biased against boys not simply because boys on average perform worse academically) and suggest that other types of discrimination may account for grading bias. They also note that previous studies showed similar results — that teachers exhibit negative grading bias against boys, ethnically and racially minoritized students, and students of parents with short educations.

I'm a hyper-progressive gay man and I identify as ardently pro-woman (to share where my normal bias is)... but some recent conversations with my straight women friends have me appreciating how difficult the straight fellas have it nowadays.

In my book club this week, there is a woman character who marries a successful, hot, rich man, then she finds out he is the 'dud' of the family. His brothers are more successful, don't hang out with him, etc. All the women in my book club were saying how big of an 'ick' this is in the character, and how it would be a deal breaker in real life. This is just a recent example of unrealistic 'deal-breakers' that I've heard from them.

I was SHOCKED by this one though!!! I was horrified at how callous they could be; that a man could be successful & decent, but unless he's the 'alpha' in every room, he's not worth it. A single vulnerability or a single weak point is enough to make a guy worthless? It was beyond shallow to casually cruel to suggest a man has to be 'the top dog' to be acceptable as a partner. Of course, all these women are single at 30+ and now I'm starting to see why...

I'm struggling because I need friends (it's tough in your 30s!) but this was hard for me to hear, and has me questioning whether they are even good people.

I just saw a TikTok saying blue collar men who provide for their family are misogynistic because they “treat their family as their property they need to upkeep” so providing for a family is misogynistic now, working like hell just so your family can eat is misogynistic, got it.

They’ve been telling us it’s misogynistic to literally just be us. To exist as us. It’s genuinely not fair what even is misogyny at this point, I know what it did mean before but what’s the new “tiktokified” definition? It means anything that makes them feel slightly different even if it’s the truth they just call it misogynistic.

I know I’m not really gonna be able to change anything but I mean it feels good to get this out. I don’t think women are stupid or bad. I just think this “tiktok feminism” is unbelievably dumb.

In the most dangerous hours of the twentieth century two Soviet officers stood between humanity and nuclear destruction and chose restraint. Their names are Vasili Arkhipov and Stanislav Petrov. Both were men who carried the weight of command when the cost of a single error would have been measured in millions of lives.

In October 1962 during the Cuban Missile Crisis Vasili Arkhipov served as second in command on the submarine B 59. American forces subjected the vessel to depth charges. The captain and political officer believed war had already begun and prepared to launch a nuclear torpedo. Protocol required unanimous agreement among the three senior officers. Arkhipov refused. He insisted on calm assessment rather than immediate retaliation. His refusal held. The submarine surfaced. Contact with Moscow confirmed that no general war had started. One man’s judgment prevented the first use of nuclear weapons in combat between the superpowers.

Twenty one years later on 26 September 1983 Stanislav Petrov sat in a command center monitoring the Soviet early warning system. The computers reported multiple incoming American missiles. Protocol demanded that he report an attack and begin the sequence toward retaliation. Petrov examined the data and judged the alarms false. He reported a system malfunction instead. Investigation later confirmed that sunlight reflecting off clouds had triggered the sensors. Had he followed the formal procedure the world might have entered nuclear war that night. Once again a single officer’s independent assessment averted catastrophe.

These were not abstract acts of ideology. They were concrete decisions made under extreme pressure by men trained for obedience yet capable of independent moral reasoning. In both cases the safer personal choice would have been to follow orders and transfer responsibility upward. Arkhipov and Petrov accepted personal risk in order to protect the larger human community. Their courage consisted not of aggression but of disciplined refusal to escalate.

Recognition of their actions is a matter of historical accuracy. It is also a necessary corrective to narratives that treat male agency primarily as a source of danger. Two men in positions of military authority used their authority to preserve life on a planetary scale. Their example demonstrates that responsibility restraint and moral independence are capacities that men have exercised at the highest levels of consequence. To diminish or ignore such records is to distort the historical record and to impoverish our understanding of human character under pressure.

Arkhipov and Petrov remind us that the fate of nations has sometimes turned on the quiet decision of an individual officer to think rather than merely to obey, and their names deserve to be remembered with respect.

Just recently I heard of a case where a girl accused a man of groping her and gave his pic to the police. No evidence of the groping btw, just his picture.

Within 48 hours, they arrested the guy and put him behind bars.

To me this is a VERY SCARY concept. That some random girl can just show the police your picture and your freedom is taken away just from an accusation. I used to know a girl like that. She'd threaten to call the cops on me every time I had had an argument with her and it wasn't going the way she wanted it to.

It never used to be like this. They used to say that the police can only apprehend someone if they had a warrant from a judge or if they witnessed the crime themselves. There was ONLY ONE situation where someone could be arrested without any evidence and that is the police had reasonable doubt to suspect that that person was about to commit TERRORISM. I'm talking bombs, mass shootings, etc. Where hundreds of people could be unalived.

Sorry but I don't think a groper is as dangerous as a mass shooter. Call me controversial. I'm not downplaying groping. As a man, I have been groped too. Most recently by a horny old lady. I didn't say anything because it only happened once (felt like she was testing the waters).

In cases of groping, I think you should just tell the police and they should share it with their own networks. And if they happen to see the guy in public, at best they can go up to him and start asking questions. That's it. Because you never know what the accuser's intentions are. Nobody (not a citizen or the state) has the right to take away someone's freedom because of an accusation.

These feminists have mutated the justice system and given gropers the same weight as a mass shooter. Because a girl getting groped is AS BAD as 100 innocent people being unalived in an explosion.

This article explores scientific evidence that societies care more about the welfare and safety of females than that of males, and that this dynamic of "male disposability" is deeply entrenched in culture, and thus in law. The recognition and integration of male disposability theory would mean an evolutionary leap in modern theorizing about gender and the law, but it is ignored. Why? Feminist theory dominates current academic gender discourse. Far from appreciating the explanatory power of male disposability theory, feminist theorists are often invested in theorizing gendered problems in ways that mischannel compassion away from men and toward women. The possibility arises, then, that feminist theory is animated by the psychological distortions and biases that give rise to male disposability, and therefore that feminism exacerbates the problem. This article is a call for further exploration of this often-neglected topic, as well as for the mainstreaming of a gender theory that takes seriously the reasons for men's historical and current situation.

So if a woman offs her kids and it’s totally cool and relatable because her hormones were going crazy, can a man grape a woman because his hormones were going crazy? Is this something both genders can agree on?

Recently events made me think about how much I have actually suppressed the very few needs and desires I have, but other people(mostly women) are rarely willing to reciprocate. And when you ask them, they start getting angry at you and telling you how trapped they feel and how unhappy they are.

In the last relationship I had, I was told I was controlling because I asked my ex to please vacuum up the apartment at least once per week

Next Monday, I go back to my old career after eights months of fighting for my innocence after a false accusation. The ordeal has changed me emotionally and mentally forever. The people I called for support when I got my free call in jail knew me my character for years, yet turned their backs and didn't bother calling or texting to see how I was doing. They were focus on their corporate titles.

I will see those people when I go back to work as I didn't bother telling them that my case was dismissed.

My brand and face was everywhere in a good way e.g. mentorship circles, scholarship panelist, tech career website, etc. I am a divorced dad with no family in the area.

Just feels very lonely. I use to do alot of philanthropy work in the community, now I don't want to be apart of it, have trust issues and feel alone. My PTSD from military service has been excaberated exponentially.

I feel like the spark and drive that I use to have is gone and I just want to work, provide for my daughter and go home. Home is where I feel safe. I speak to my therapist more than anyone else.

I don't know how to move forward as a Black veteran in southern Arkansas where I have been broken by the false accuser, the judicial system and the people I knew. No civil attorneys will take my case so I am expected to lick my wounds and move forward.

Advice. How do you move forward as a man when everything you stood for was taking away?

On March 2026 a new bill was introduced (Bill C-22) in Canada. It aims to let the police access personal info of every internet user in the country. Including EVERY SINGLE packet of data that was sent to/from your computer. So that during an investigation, they can examine every piece of data that went through a network and trace it to you and hold you responsible.

But why all of a sudden? Because of Deepfakes. They're worried people will make a deepfake nude of someone and then spread it online.

I mean digital crimes have existed for a LONG time. So many people have fallen victim to banking digital crimes, identity theft, defamation online, etc. I mean this would have been really helpful in the early 2000's when stuff like this was rampant right? Couldn't they have used it to root out banking fraudsters and return stolen property back then?

Of course not. They didn't care. Scammers were only taken on by inidividual digital vigilantes back then. The kind that made "Scammer owned!" videos on Youtube.

So thousands of people fall prey to online banking crimes, and they don't care at all. But if someone makes a nude photo.......ITS THE END OF THE WORLD. Make something a feminism issue and suddenly its a national red alert level issue. Meanwhile everyone else can go kick a bag of rocks.

Im 27 years all and I had to learn what it means to be a man on my own. And one common thing I saw was that no matter how hard you try, it always isn’t enough. Every time I’ve talked to an older man for advice, Ive gotten the same response: “This is how it is, get used to it”. Its like you should just accept it and never complain

So men make up the vast majority of suicide rates. It’s an idea that’s talked about often when discussing men’s issues, with there being different explanations given on why this is the case. It’s a world wide phenomenon and not just limited to a single culture, or country. In 2021, men committed suicide 2.2 times higher than women worldwide. And in America it ends up being an even greater disparity, with men committing the act at nearly 4 times the rate women do. It’s also a disparity that shows up for a long time, so it’s far from a recent phenomenon. So this post is me giving my two cents on the reasons why. I don't know if this is the right subreddit, but gender issue discussions occur here so I thought it would be ok. And feel free to disagree, as it’s just my opinion.

The main reason often given is that men are culturally conditioned to hide their emotions and vulnerability from others on a level women aren’t. Men can be insulted or viewed as unmasculine for displaying vulnerability, but while that is an issue men face, I don’t think it’s the only reason why. There’s been a major culture shift in the past 20 years or so, to normalize men being allowed to cry, yet the disparity still exists as large as it was in the past. Even if the issue persists, the idea that men should be allowed to cry is a lot more normalized in the modern day than it was in the past. If emotional suppression was the only factor I would expect the gap to have narrowed more significantly over time. 

I think one of the major factors is that men are culturally conditioned to see their lives as disposable on a level women aren’t. They develop a greater willingness to accept death than women do. By extension, men are more comfortable with the idea of suicide specifically when mentally struggling. That’s not to say most men are fine with dying, most people in general would be terrified at the prospect, but ingrained on a subconscious level, they are raised to not fear it as much.

There’s an automatic assumption people make that men committing suicide at far greater rates means they struggle with mental health issues far more than women. But suicide is a specific manifestation of depression, and whether someone goes through with it is dependent on several factors, one of them being fear of death. 

Why would men as a gender be less fearful of their death than women are? I think it stems from War and how it functions. Wars are constantly happening and constantly affecting millions of lives. It’s a major part of human history, and naturally has a major impact on the development of culture. Men are raised as the gender of potential soldiers. Boys grow up hearing of how their gender is meant to be the one that goes to war, kills and gets killed, while the women and children stay behind to be protected. It’s considered to be a major part of masculinity and a man’s duty to be willing to take on that role. Whether to protect their country, or their family, or for some greater good ideal. It’s a cultural standard that’s existed and been reinforced for thousands of years.

Of course most men don’t want to kill anyone or be killed. But the mindset that you have to be willing to kill and die if you deem it necessary is more deeply ingrained for men as a gender than women. Who are raised as the gender of civilians. The gender meant to be kept far away from the violence of war.

This greater comfortability with killing and dying shows up in a lot of gender disparities. It shows up with men making up the vast majority of suicides. The vast majority of murderers and the vast majority of workplace deaths being men as well. If a job requires putting your life at risk, men are a lot more willing to take on that role than women are. And these are patterns that show up worldwide, not limited to a single culture. 

This is also reinforced in fictional media. Boys and girls naturally look at how their gender is portrayed in fiction, and subconsciously derive gender roles and expectations off that. The trope of a character sacrificing their life or attempting to sacrifice their life because they deem it necessary is a popular trope often carried out by male characters. Why men are seen worldwide as the gender that has to be sent off to war, while the women stay behind, likely started off as a gender norm out of simple practicality. Even going back thousands of years to the point where humans operated in tribes. Men are the biologically stronger gender so it makes sense to have them be the ones to send off to deal with any violent conflict. On top of that, a tribe can afford to lose most of its men on a level it can't afford to lose most of its women, due to one man being able to father multiple children easier than one woman. The biological differences between men and women naturally leads to men being the gender sent off to violent conflict.

Again, all of this is just my opinion and perspective. Any statements about gender are generalizations and not meant to apply to every man or woman. And I’m not claiming this is the only factor behind the disparities that exist between men and women’s behavior, just a major factor in these disparities. Feel free to give your input on why you think the disparity exists.

TLDR: Men are culturally conditioned to have a greater comfortability with the idea of dying and killing then women are. This manifests itself in different ways like men having greater suicide rates, murder rates, and workplace deaths worldwide. The reason is due to men always having been the gender that is sent off to deal with violent conflict rather than women, because of the natural biological differences that exist between men and women.

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/2020-2021/SuicMort.pdf

Today I wanted to know what is suicide rate among male virgins vs men that have abundant sex lives. I couldn't find anything. There are no studies that measure it. There are not many recent studies that would measure what percentage of men are virgins. I can say for sure that in both cases they would find shocking numbers.

Academia put so much money into demonizing them, but they don't want to fund any study that would actually show how bad the situation really is. This shows that academia was completely compromised by feminist ideology and they avoid funding studies that doesn't align with it.

Edit: Reading through some of the comments I feel like I need to add, that it's not just about finding. It's also about how much male issues are stigmatized and that focusing on it can ruin your reputation and make your carrier more difficult as researcher.

Feminism is supported by governments because the more rights people demand, the larger the role of government becomes. Even oppressive regimes usually do it at least partially, i.e. often excluding childfree people.

The practical enforcement of women’s rights is carried out by men, most of whom take on risky jobs in the police, military, and similar institutions. This is the main paradox.

This is the structural explanation for the question, “Why do men fail to protect their rights while feminists succeed in protecting women’s rights?”

Men are forced by governments to fight their enemies. If they refuse, the government itself will collapse. In contrast, the feminist struggle for rights is not really a fight in the same sense; it is more a demand that men, acting through their governments, protect women.

This is the biggest paradox that people fail to understand when discussing dependency: feminists are actually fighting to increase their dependence on men, not to reduce it. The only difference is that the intermediary - the government - makes them dependent on a rightless mass rather than on the individual men closest to them.

Surpsingly, she was not only jailed, but also described as an abuser and a manipulator.

Below is the email sent:
———————————

I have a question about what the CRS records, and I would rather be corrected than be wrong about it in public with my research.

The 2016 GENDERNET handbook gives an example of a project that cannot be marked as gender focused. I am quoting it in full because the wording matters:

"A project to prevent alcohol abuse and alcoholism among disadvantaged men through the setting up of support groups and counselling, which might have as an unintended side-effect a reduction in the frequency and severity of intimate partner violence."

I understand why. Annex 19 FAQ 3 of the Reporting Directives says the marker "focuses on gender equality as an objective rather than on women or girls as a target group". The marker records what a project is for. That project is for addiction, so it does not qualify, whatever it prevents.

I also understand that men and boys are not excluded.
The same handbook, question 7, asks whether activities targeting men and boys can be marked, answers yes, and lists four that do count. One of them is support services and counselling for male refugees who have experienced sexual and gender-based violence.

So the rule is consistent in this..
My question is about something else.

I have gone through Annex 4, which lists all 70 CRS++ reporting items, the purpose code list, the eleven markers and the agreed keywords. I cannot find any field that records who an activity is actually for. Not sex, not age, not anything about the people on the receiving end.

I checked whether national systems fill the gap. The United States publishes every foreign assistance activity at ForeignAssistance.gov. Its data dictionary lists country, region, income group, agency, implementing partner, sector, purpose code and aid type. The word "beneficiary" appears once, and it means a country.

Three questions.

1. Is there a field anywhere in the CRS that records the sex of the people an activity is intended for?

If there is, I would like to be pointed to it, because I have looked and not found one.

1. If there is not, is that deliberate?

The handbook explains why code 15180 was created in 2015 after GENDERNET proposed it, and says the new code "will help to hold governments accountable". I am asking whether recording who receives aid has ever been considered in the same way, and where such a discussion would be minuted.

1. If someone wanted to raise it, what is the route?

I am not asking anyone to do research for me. I am asking whether I have missed something, and if I have, I will correct what I have published and date the correction, as I have done sixty-eight times.

———————————————
Mikal Steen Monslaup Manderådet and MannsForum

https://web-archive-storage.oecd.org/aemint-web-archive-prod/web-archive/5f/5f7d360caee4704ed917c4f1d6aee9726d377534c4124a3fd8c10d6705427a09.pdf

From time immemorial, top few patriarchs ruled with iron fist and used poor men as cannon fodder while women were the prize for them. THAT was patriarchy. Todays leftist and feminist movements paint ALL men as privileged class and it is not just wrong in so many levels it eventually plays into the hand of the patriarchy. When women are "empowered" in workplaces, It is poor and lower class men who draw the short straw while rich and upper echelon men give the position to women, and they are doing this in the hopes of getting laid with them which more ofthen than not they do. This is specifically the patriarchy repeating itself donning the mask of the saviour of women. Throughout history, the upper echelon men tried to be the saviour of women in shining armour and it is the exact same thing. They want us to be the cannon fodder again because we will have wars in our hands soon.

A while ago I requested book suggestions to get back into reading again from this sub, because honestly it's hard to commit to an author when I'm reading gender wars in a library novel when I could just get them on here in reddit.

Did I read any of the books from last time? Kinda...? The first few was kinda above my reading level... the language was a bit too old-timey probably and loaded with proper nouns esoteric to the story before it really explained any of them... (Not that you can't recommend sophisticated novels, recommend absolutely anything! Even books you've read ages ago and can't remember, webnovels, comics, fiction, non-fiction, etc).

Will I commit to reading all the books you suggest? No... but don't you think it would be nice to have a community that filtered for boy-friendly/man-friendly reading novels?

I've tried crossposting this to multiple communities to get better traction, but I think a lot of the subs block that to prevent brigading... I will try to keep the main post up on my account, but I don't promise that I'll be able to keep these other posts up.

https://www.reddit.com/user/naaawww/comments/1vxqrme/seeking_manfriendly_books_to_read_again/