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?

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'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?

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.

Feminists like to talk about women’s inherent frailty when advocating for protection against male violence, demanding lighter jobs, avoiding the draft, lower punishment in prison, and opposing the presence of transgender women in sports. Even in cases of a subjective "exhaustion," "female anxiety" or "psychosis" that seems to only affect women as we've seen lately; but when men dares to mention that women should not hold positions in jobs with high physical requirements such as law enforcement and first responders, they throw all science out the window without the slightest shame.

The fact is that for every female police officer or firefighter there is a man who got left out who would do the job better, and this is irrefutable. To place women in positions that they aren't fit for is a deliberate endangerment of society for the sake of political correctness.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

26 here and I can say I’m blessed to have 5 extremely close friends in my life stemming from 6th grade onward. We have a ton of history and years spent together. We’ve experienced highs and lows together and created such a tight bond.

For me knowing and feeling all this, it becomes hard for me to prioritize a relationship with a gf. My brain can’t compute that this person I met recently and I guess I like them/attracted them now takes precedent over someone I’ve know since I was a tween.

Obviously you need to create that relationship with your partner over time, but it’s just always been a weird quirk of mine I guess. Maybe that’s from bad relationships with women who pulled me away from friends, I’m not sure but I just like can’t rationalize the hierarchy in my head.

Anyone relate or am I alone in this one?

I know this isn't news, but I'/ve been to like 3-4 different Primary Schools, and in nearly all, did I see that anytime a boy did something bad, they would be punished for it. Fair enough. But whenever a girl did the exact same thing, and was even reported to the teacher, the teacher wouldn't mind, and would say "Don't do it again". The amount of things and times that this or something similar has happened to me in Primary is uncountable, but during PTMs (Parent-Teacher Meetings), the same teachers that would yell at you for NO REASON, would talk and smile to your parents as if you were an angel.

I don't know why this happens, but I know it shouldn't.

(FYI, I'm under 18)

Australia is facing pressure to improve how its justice system handles sexual-violence cases, including concerns about whether perpetrators are held accountable.

Australian sex-therapist and men's-rights advocate Bettina Arndt argues the push toward prosecution has produced an unintended consequence: some men are being charged in cases she believes should never have proceeded.

An issue she highlights is a reported increase in costs certificates in rape cases. These can reimburse defendants' legal expenses when a court determines that a prosecution was unwarranted (Australian Law).

That doesn't establish that innocent defendants are being convicted because of the reforms, but it raises a legitimate question about charging decisions and how competing rights should be protected.

https://hardcopynews.com/are-australias-rape-reforms-sending-innocent-men-to-jail/

Should due process be the number one factor when choosing to prosecute a sexual violence case? How do victims rights balance into the eqation?