TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

BaroloBaron Archive

View 5 posts and 414 comments by BaroloBaron on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

Personally i'm more of a slightly left-leaning centrist. However I can confirm that whenever this group discusses more traditionally political topics, it's with clearly leftist opinions.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/07/26 04:21 PM
8

I don't get it. Freeman listens to Michael Caine's slightly embarassing memory, says "I wish I was there", and this is harassment how? (Or maybe I misunderstand the sentence completely. I now realize in English it should be "I wish I had been there" if he meant he would have wanted to see Caine's embarassment with his own eyes?)
/r/MensRights25/07/26 11:07 AM
2

It's clearly something that damages some men (and, I would argue, also men in their generality, as we then become obsessed with not showing any behaviour that could be viewed as feminine). But when you decenter men, you will claim it's against women because.
/r/MensRights25/07/26 10:06 AM
2

I think we should credit TheTinMen, who also has a specific subreddit. The video mostly hid their signature.
/r/EverydayMisandry18/07/26 04:37 PM
22

Feminism is the union of women. It's got the exact same qualities and flaws of workers' unions, and in particular its goal is not the common good, but the advancement of the social category whose interests it protects.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/07/26 01:59 PM
1

I've seen multiple instances where this is not the case.
/r/MensRights26/06/26 07:26 AM
5

It's not a scientific statement. But consider this: women know very well that not all women are saints, and unlike men they cannot be forced into conforming to the radical feminist narrative. There is much more pressure on men to perform as the good feminist guy, because accusing a woman of hating women is not straightforward. Additionally, it's common for men to feel a duty to protect women no matter what.
/r/MensRights25/06/26 12:13 AM
40

Reverse the genders and they would immediately see it as the worst red flag ever. Someone who hates all people in your group except you because they say "you're one of the good ones". What do you think will happen once the two of you have a first substantial disagreement? Exactly.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/06/26 09:33 PM
6

Sometimes I think there are more women than men that call out the feminist BS.
/r/MensRights24/06/26 12:27 PM
11

Pal, when I was your age I naively used to view myself as a feminist too. This lasted many years until I gained a better practical understanding of relationships between men and women, as they really are and not as they are told. So trust me when I say that at the first strong disagreement, you won't be "one of the good men" any more, regardless of how politely you express yourself. You will instead become proof that men are generally wicked. In fact, if you break up with her now, you'll be bran…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/06/26 04:07 PM
22

The nonsensical part is where they claim women just tolerate men. Now, let's be real: why would anybody propose to someone who tolerates him?
/r/EverydayMisandry21/06/26 09:24 PM
3

It's very logical. So much so that you haven't even tried debating it. As for the rest, I'm very happy to receive men's compliments.
/r/MensRights01/06/26 09:23 AM
3

Depends on what you mean by right. It equates women's reaction to men's attention to homophobia. It suggests that a (supposedly straight) woman is justified in overreacting to male attention, because (homophobic straight) men overreact to male attention. Except that the latter do it because they are not attracted to men. Is this what the meme wanted to achieve? Proving that women are like homophobes, and that they are not attracted to men? Because in that case, yes, the meme is right. But I don'…
/r/MensRights01/06/26 08:52 AM
8

And by extension a lot of women are like homophobes. Not exactly a flex.
/r/EverydayMisandry29/05/26 11:48 PM
12

Fun fact: you can enjoy men and women looking at your body. It's appreciation, you don't have to react negatively to appreciation. Secondly: the meme tries to draw a comparison between straight men and straight women. The straight man doesn't want to be looked at by the gay man because he's not attracted to men. The straight woman doesn't want to be looked at by the straight man because she's not attracted to men either? Does that make sense to the author?
/r/EverydayMisandry29/05/26 01:20 PM
9

Including bi women.
/r/EverydayMisandry29/05/26 01:16 PM
40

Women with gay friends will only show their true colours when they discover their son is gay or their husband is bi.
/r/EverydayMisandry29/05/26 01:13 PM
19

Rule of thumb: every "study" with 90+% figures making outrageous claims has a 90+% probability of being BS.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/05/26 09:47 AM
3

I am sure she was also emotional about his story, but the body language says there were many emotions flowing in that moment. Nothing to be ashamed of, to be clear.
/r/MensRights19/05/26 09:15 PM
3

I mean, I can sympathize with her. When your body is telling you something like that, it takes a lot of restraint to ignore it.
/r/MensRights19/05/26 04:41 PM
29

how professional all women are Link to exclusive footage of average professional woman
/r/MensRights19/05/26 04:33 PM
2

That the Lib Dems cannot be liberal democrats in this particular area, is for me a great source of sorrow.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/05/26 03:17 PM
6

They don't. In fact, many bisexual women refuse to date bisexual men.
/r/EverydayMisandry20/03/26 01:58 PM
5

There's a trend of radical feminist gay men who side with women because they believe homophobia is a men's thing. Instead, women's contempt of gay men is omnipresent but covert. In the West, you only see what a woman really thinks about men who aren't straight in two situations: a) when she's approached by a bi man, or she learns her s.o. is bi b) when she discovers her son is gay
/r/EverydayMisandry20/03/26 01:57 PM
1

My only experience of autoban was with a subreddit that was absolutely full of shit. Even if some contributions are valid, it doesn't make the subreddit itself better.
/r/MensRights12/03/26 12:05 AM
60

Subreddits that do that are full of shit anyway.
/r/MensRights11/03/26 03:38 AM
9

These days it's better to be gay. Sadly most can't choose.
/r/EverydayMisandry05/03/26 04:37 PM
2

Yeah, I couldn't force myself to read this idiocy until the end. It does look like the comment of a single deranged person, though.
/r/EverydayMisandry13/02/26 02:06 AM
5

Yes yes yes, I am a non binary femboy, and based on my experience with women, feminist or not, is that they are disgusted towards feminine men due to homophobia and toxic masculinity. they still expect you to be a traditionally masculine 6 foot unemotional provider/protector, you just have to take on the added role of being a charasmatic complete kiss ass to feminism/women's rights, which is a horrible deal but it's what they expect. I've come across a few gay men who are acritically supportive …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/02/26 04:30 PM
1

I'm sorry: are the media spreading the SHIRTLESS picture of the 13 YEAR OLD boy victim of statutory RAPE? Is the world nuts???
/r/EverydayMisandry09/02/26 05:44 PM
32

The attempt at rationalizing it is actually the worst part, as if it were possible to use an intrinsic characteristic as an insult to someone (hence fundamentally assigning it a negative connotation without everv other individua sharing that characteristic being shamed for it as well. It's the worst part because those who are convinced they're acting as a force of good never feel any shame, nor are they capable of self-restraint. The most atrocious crimes in history were committed by those who c…
/r/EverydayMisandry09/02/26 05:25 PM
7

It wasn't invented by women, but it never meant what feminists think it means.
/r/MensRights05/02/26 03:59 AM
4

We know that. The problem is that the kind of reasoning appearing in this video is widely seen as justifiable. People think that boys and young men are exposed to a large amount of misogynistic content and that's a problem. Now try to think of how much more damage this kind of video causes when a male teenager watches it and then sees hundreds of thousands of likes on it.
/r/EverydayMisandry04/02/26 03:18 PM
2

We keep hearing that boys and young men are become misogynistic and toxic due to the likes of Andrew Tate. Isn't it obvious that one video like this does more damage than 20 videos by Tate?
/r/EverydayMisandry04/02/26 02:58 PM
1

Really? Because I seem to recall femicide laws establish a compulsory harsher sentencing when the victim is a woman.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/26 02:23 PM
1

And what would the right sentencing be for such a femicide?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/26 12:35 PM
1

I made a proposal, which you have ignored. I don't participate in men-women blame games.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/26 12:24 PM
1

Alright, this is an answer that is not an answer. Come back when you're making conversation, not a monologue.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/26 12:14 PM
1

If a man drives over his girlfriend not once but twice because he believes she flirted with other men at a party, do you believe that to be a femicide?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/26 12:05 PM
1

You mean femicide rates aren't going down despite 15+ years of "men bad" talk in media and politics? That's confusing (not)! 😹 You want to know how to reduce femicides? I have an idea, but I'm not sure you'll like the medicine. We should teach boys that they should fear toxic relationships and particularly toxic women, and at the first sign that they're in a relationship with a toxic woman they should run. The first sign of serious disrespect is the seed of a pathological situation that can lead…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/26 12:02 PM
1

Non-bidirectional IPV is more frequently committed by women.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/26 11:49 AM
1

if gender is unrelated? I didn't say that. I said that you don't need a special crime to punish men differently. You just punish hate crime more harshly regardless of the sex of the offender: then if men commit that crime more often than women, they will also be punished more often. But when a woman commits it, we don't punish her more leniently because she's just a woman. That would be nuts.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/02/26 11:46 AM
1

So you agree with what I've said.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/01/26 05:46 PM
3

Or of a tenancy agreement.
/r/MensRights27/01/26 10:19 PM
-1

Feminism is very happy to endorse the elements of tradition that work in its favour. I also don't see leftism against the "nuclear family" (are you sure you're using that word correctly? a nuclear family isn't THAT traditional) per se. Leaving people free to choose whether to be traditional or not (because frankly tradition doesn't work for everybody) is more of a moderate liberal view. Just because the Left has been taken over by (a radical variant of) feminism, it doesn't mean that feminism is…
/r/MensRights27/01/26 12:16 AM
2

Again the 99% thing? I really dislike assuming other people are dumb, but they're really making it hard not to.
/r/EverydayMisandry26/01/26 11:36 AM
1

Hilarious.
/r/EverydayMisandry26/01/26 11:33 AM
33

Biphobia is real.
/r/EverydayMisandry24/01/26 02:27 AM
56

Huh, yeah? We've been making the analogy with racism every since.
/r/EverydayMisandry18/01/26 07:39 PM
9

I've been reading the wrong kind of fiction, clearly.
/r/EverydayMisandry11/01/26 10:45 PM
3

Is this even important? The claim I'm interested in debunking is that female violence on men, particularly IPV, is negligible. Nobody ever claimed that men can't be victims of other men.
/r/MensRights31/12/25 01:16 PM
108

Yes of course, it was all ratified by the first council of men under the leadership of Adam the first man himself. Only Eve opposed the decision, but she wasn't allowed to cast a vote.
/r/EverydayMisandry29/12/25 01:29 PM
1

Very few people think it's "all women", but there is a generalized trend of condoning the "some women".
/r/MensRights23/12/25 11:47 AM
11

Im also sick of seing women being treated like objects Yeah, less than a week ago Reddit presented me with this post by a woman who claimed she felt objectified by the attention of unattractive men because -- this was her reasoning -- she felt that only receiving the attention of unattractive men limited her options. Then imagine how objectified men who can't elicit any attention at all must feel, lol.
/r/MensRights23/12/25 11:42 AM
44

To be fair, I appreciate this kind of statements because of its honesty. This woman is saying that to her objectification means unwanted sexual interest, regardless of how that sexual interest is expressed. This is one of the most common uses of the word "objectification", except that in debates it's imperative to gaslight people (particularly men) and deny it vigorously.
/r/EverydayMisandry16/12/25 11:33 PM
5

So we need laws to protect men, because women are already safe.
/r/MensRights30/11/25 03:18 PM
9

This does not match the data from US (1.6 x) and EU (almost 2x) I linked to. Every single time I read the 6x figure, it comes from a misunderstanding of data that ends up comparing apples to oranges. That seems to be the case here too.
/r/MensRights30/11/25 03:17 PM
4

For the record, the article is comparing the ratio of IPV homicides of a certain gender over all homicides of the same gender. It says nothing about the relative frequency of female IPV homicides and male IPV homicides. In fact, they report 133,691 female IPV homicides and 373,077 male IPV homicides. That would mean wives and girlfriends kill their husbands almost 3 times more often than the other way round, which would honestly sound odd, so it means the sample is not homogeneous.
/r/MensRights30/11/25 03:14 PM
2

You've left out the most frightening clause: [...] or as an act to limit her personal freedom The prosecution doesn't even need to prove gender-based discrimination: any murder motivated by the intention to prevent a woman from doing something she would otherwise be free to do is a femicide, even if the murderer would have been equally intentioned to kill a man who'd do the same thing.
/r/MensRights30/11/25 02:55 PM
8

That's an interesting point. The lawmakers must have realized it's hard to prove someone's intention beyond reasonable doubt, so they've added a catch-all clause ",,, or as an act to limit her personal freedom ..." Clearly you see that the class of murders that happen to prevent a person from doing what they would otherwise be free to do is huge. The rationale is that when a woman is killed by someone who doesn't want her to do something, it's presumed to be gender-based murder regardless of the…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/11/25 04:11 PM
5

They could do like in Germany, and pretend woman need unique protection, and that this text allows it. That's what they do. But the Italian constitutional jurisprudence is also clear in stating that whenever you formally bend a Constitutional principle in order to materially uphold it (e.g. you formally discriminate men in law so that equality can be achieved in practice) you must do so in the least disruptive way. For what concerns this law, it is a simple exercise to turn it into a gender neut…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/11/25 03:59 PM
5

It will probably change when Italy elects a successor to Giorgia Meloni. Unlikely. The entire parliament voted in favour of this. It would take a high profile case of gender based violence against men. The woman in Taranto who drove over her ex because he left her, and then screamed in public "Why aren't you dead?!" only made local headlines because the man didn't die. We don't even know what happened after she was arrested for attempted murder. Also, asking as an Italian American dual citizen, …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/11/25 02:12 PM
61

As an Italian, I want to add that the law is unconstitutional. It will be challenged at the supreme court, and it should be voided with fairly obvious motivation (art. 3 of the Constitution stating the unlawfulness of discrimination by gender). Whether this will happen or not, I don't know. The justices of the supreme court are humans like everybody else, and subject to the same kind of pressure as everybody else. They also live in the same political climate as everybody else, meaning a law pass…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/11/25 04:11 PM
11

In any decent legal system, it should be unconstitutional to create a crime that discriminates by characteristics such as sex (except for the case where it is logically impossible to apply the definition to both sexes). In this particular case, we could decide to punish murder as a gender-hate crime more harshly. When we decide that such a crime only applies when the victim of hate is a woman, but not when it is a man, this is sex-based discrimination through law. It cannot be accepted.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/11/25 12:21 AM
30

Believe all women, right?
/r/MensRights10/11/25 12:18 PM
14

Not necessarily, because while plutocracy is the power of wealth and all billionaires are wealthy, patriarchy is the government of patriarchs (originally the leading fathers), and not all men are patriarchs. However on one hand feminists are the first to confuse patriarchy with androcracy, and on the other hand to refer to the present Western system as a patriarchy is a big stretch of the definition.
/r/MensRights04/11/25 04:23 PM
32

Correct. That's the smoking gun of fraudulent reporting. That report has to be taken down.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/11/25 09:37 AM
-1

You think I'm reading that? Keep it short and simple. To meet your mental capacity? It's a few lines, dude, not a treatise. If that's too much effort to read for you, I'm not surprised by your opinions.
/r/MensRights19/10/25 12:33 PM
-3

I have told you why. You just don't want to listen. You prefer to think that a world where you can have anything you want without ever having to compromise is possible, because if your dream of a sustainable wealth the likes of which the world had never seen before (western life is still decidedly comfortable, you know that right?) comes crumbling, then it must be caused by some comic book supervillain 😹 You can either accept that our parents and grandparents put a mortgage on our future to fund…
/r/MensRights19/10/25 12:29 PM
-2

Sorry to disappoint you, but natality is good for business. The reality is that in the western world it's also become very expensive to have kids. There are two main reasons for this: first, everybody wants their children to have a degree; and secondly, a large part of our income is taken to ensure that people can live into their 80s and 90s, with whatever shitty quality of life. You want more younger people? You gotta phase out the old ones. You want to protect the oldies? Then no babies for yo…
/r/MensRights19/10/25 12:02 PM
1

Again…even big dicks can be little bitches. Yet out of all the possible insults you choose the sexual one. My friend, stop this embarrassment. Saying "it was a mistake" is one of the most honourable things people can do, and it's free. There is no way this kind of language would be accepted from the people we don't like. We have to hold those we like to the same high standards.
/r/MensRights19/10/25 11:39 AM
4

I'd say the slogan can be used in ways that are not blatantly misandric, but in the current climate it can easily get some misandrists overexcited.
/r/EverydayMisandry16/10/25 11:48 PM
10

How is insulting someone for having low sex drive more acceptable than insulting them for having a small penis?
/r/MensRights07/10/25 01:00 PM
23

No it's not fine. Nobody is allowed to resort to insults as long as they have a good reason for it (guess what: everybody's got a good reason, from their own perspective). And yes, insult politics is an effective way of gaining consensus. But it also is shit politics, and ultimately the main reason why I cannot bear politics any longer.
/r/MensRights07/10/25 12:55 PM
0

Its not about that.. its about the clear double standard.. Yeah I know that's how people feel about it. I can't say what would have happened if it had been a man, I don't know that. All I can say is that I believe being out on bail pending trial for this kind of crime is reasonable.
/r/MensRights08/09/25 07:46 PM
7

Ok. They're not letting her go though. In the end, everybody has a right to a trial before being convicted for a crime. I don't have a problem with that, as long as she gets what she deserves.
/r/MensRights08/09/25 12:01 PM
106

Because the violent acts of women are seen as unimportant. Small transgressions of a child. Through personal experience, I have come to endorse a zero-tolerance policy towards these acts: the next time a woman does that to me, she's not going to see me again or even have the chance to apologise.
/r/MensRights02/09/25 10:13 AM
0

After a few minutes, it seems that the claim of this video is that you can't have fairness and equality, and a society where rights and duties are not gender specific save for what is biologically motivated, without turning men into victims. Well, this is the kind of contribution that gives men's rights activists a bad name.
/r/MensRights02/09/25 01:22 AM
2

if the depressed person is lashing out at women And if they don't? What if they're just expressing legitimate criticism towards radical feminism? those terms are used in comparable ways, in that they describe gendered phenomenon, often in a charged way With a very big difference: lashing out at incels is socially accepted as a good thing; the rest is not.
/r/MensRights28/08/25 02:21 PM
3

the incel is the one who thinks his life is worthless Do decent people pick on the depressed? would you feel similarly on denoting "gold digger" or "feminazi" as slurs as well in this instance? Provided that they're used in comparable ways.
/r/MensRights28/08/25 02:06 PM
10

Nope. You're attacking a man by insinuating he's a worthless life form because he cannot get laid. If you wanted to attack his misogyny, you'd call him a misogynist.
/r/MensRights28/08/25 07:28 AM
12

Since when a slur needs to target fictional characteristics? The N-word, F-word, R-word technically refer to real stuff too. The I-word isn't just a shorthand: it's a degrading accusation that can be used to silence a person
/r/MensRights28/08/25 01:48 AM
10

Nah. It wouldn't be misandrist, and this particular comment is not misogynistic. In our society not covering up as it is appropriate to the situation, especially in front of members of the other sex, is exhibitionism, regardless of whether people are straight or gay. There's a reason why change rooms are segregated by gender.
/r/EverydayMisandry23/08/25 03:29 PM
26

They're not equivalent. If someone said that teenage boys shouldn't be wearing only briefs or boxers in front of women, would you have considered it disgusting?
/r/EverydayMisandry23/08/25 10:15 AM
6

Yeah well, we figured out male chicks are useless too the poultry industry so I can imagine people like Heinlein will sooner or later reach the same conclusion for baby boys too.
/r/MensRights17/08/25 05:26 AM
24

Does the biological fact extend to old women, past child-bearing age, being expendable too? People make certain statements without realizing that their implications will bite them back in the butt.
/r/MensRights16/08/25 03:36 PM
1

If you ask me, this last rage bait doesn't even rise to the level where I should take notice. I actually tried to take notice, but it feels too stupid. If I paid attention to it, I'd be making it look less stupid.
/r/MensRights13/08/25 09:38 AM
16

There's a significant number of gay men who are feminist because they have experienced male bullying and found female friends, and concluded that homophobia is a male phaenomenon. That's more typical of the West because for instance in many African countries women can be homophobic in very loud and violent ways. However, here's the thing. Male homophobia comes from one major factor and one minor factor: the major factor is the psychological conflict that straight men have with latent homosexual …
/r/EverydayMisandry04/08/25 11:20 AM
1

I agree. The problem is that the case where something that is "virtually not happening at all" starts happening after people hear it from a trusted source, like a progressive, prestigious newspaper of international standing, is not that rare.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/08/25 01:14 PM
2

I don't know about you, but I've provided my female partners with all the emotional support they needed whenever they needed it, and I never realized I had the option to complain that it shouldn't be my job to do so.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/07/25 10:28 PM
1

Since the world should be in a balance, what do you give back in exchange for that?
/r/BlackPillScience30/07/25 04:09 PM
3

There you go, you've dropped the I-word. Well, I've tried both worlds, and I can say that the gay dating arena is much more relaxed.
/r/BlackPillScience30/07/25 02:18 PM
4

Hm, and the other half? Make up? Expensive clothes? A sports car?
/r/BlackPillScience30/07/25 02:08 PM
4

You said "men don't put in effort", an athletic man definitely puts in a big effort. And I would say that being athletic is a big part of looks.
/r/BlackPillScience30/07/25 12:39 PM
3

But the study used pictures of athletic men, way above average, to assess the interest of women. Not to mention the fact that gay men don't seem to have an issue being attracted to men.
/r/BlackPillScience30/07/25 12:17 PM
12

I'm ok with everything as long as there aren't double standards. But we all know the society isn't ready to award the same kind of compensation for "attempted kiss" if the victim is a man.
/r/MensRights25/07/25 04:04 PM
149

I'm sure no drunk woman ever gave an unwanted kiss to a man. /s
/r/MensRights25/07/25 10:36 AM
13

Unanimity is a very bad symptom: there is hardly any politically relevant decision that can be approved without any opposition whatsoever. When that happens, it means that the politicians are censoring themselves. And why would they do it? Because they're not at freedom of speaking their mind. Opposing this bill would be tantamount to shooting oneself in the head (metaphorically, I hope). But let's look at the bright side: when someone claims that society is androcentric, we can now say that it …
/r/MensRights24/07/25 07:01 PM
32

For historical reasons, it's not recognized as mutilation yet.
/r/MensRights24/07/25 12:53 PM
95

It's a very blatant violation of the art. 3 paragraph 1 of the Italian Constitution, stating: All citizens have equal social dignity and are equal before the law, without distinction of sex, race, language, religion, political opinion, personal and social conditions. With such an patent unconstitutionality, the President of Italy would be bound to refuse assent and send the bill back to the Parliament, but he's unlikely to. Let's hope the Constiutional Court has some neurons left and will strike…
/r/MensRights24/07/25 10:50 AM
4

You mean human rights.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/07/25 01:35 PM
-3

The claim is that there exist situations that are better handled through treatment than without it, and letting trained professionals decide on a case by case basis is better than a blanket prohibition.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/07/25 07:47 PM
-6

When laws are approved to deny treatment to trans kids regardless of medical opinion, I'd say it's fear mongering. You don't fight excess with excess.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/07/25 01:53 PM
5

Well, this is worse than it looks. The data doesn't just tell us that younger men are critical of feminism regardless of their political application, which is hardly a surprise given how feminism treats them, but that as a result of being bullied, even the left leaning ones are buying into the fear mongering right-wing propaganda.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates20/07/25 12:21 PM
1

I found the part about the most attractive hobbies fascinating. Clearly we can't take these polls seriously.
/r/EverydayMisandry14/07/25 04:30 PM
2

Given that almost nobody is an incel, you can't really be surprised that Mamdani isn't either. However, if you try to stretch the label way beyond its original meaning, as it has been consistently done, then Mamdani ends up being a good fit for it like so many of us.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/07/25 03:05 PM
17

Oh flip. I actually thought this was a woman telling her husband that there's nothing wrong in being attracted to both sexes. Wishful thinking I know.
/r/EverydayMisandry12/07/25 06:54 PM
4

Context?
/r/EverydayMisandry12/07/25 06:25 PM
3

Not my cup of tea but he does have a point about histerical reactions towards the tiniest risks that thus need to be amplified and dealt with in a disproportionate way. However it isn't just women who are like that.
/r/MensRights10/07/25 10:46 AM
1

Yeah that's not really a reply. But I'll speak it out for you: when I'm talking about objectification, I'm talking about objectification with consent where consent is needed. Clearly consent is not needed to appreciate the simple sight of a good looking person, even if it's sexual appreciation. Are you a man or a woman?
/r/EverydayMisandry08/07/25 01:45 AM
0

It seems consent wasn't mentioned. Anything without consent is bad, and that of course includes objectification but is not an essential characteristic of objectification.
/r/EverydayMisandry08/07/25 01:03 AM
2

Well today on a Facebook comment I discovered that you can tell a creep by looking at his picture. I feel like I have to live in Idiocracy.
/r/EverydayMisandry06/07/25 09:11 PM
1

Not if I'm happy to be objectified.
/r/EverydayMisandry26/06/25 08:42 PM
23

Include, for example, offensive, sexual comments in speech or writing, forced sexual acts or rape. Incidents could have happened at home, at schoo Oh great. I'm looking forward to the moment when the insult "incel" becomes a sexual offense.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/06/25 10:04 AM
9

It's used against every man who is perceived to criticise aspects of feminism.
/r/MensRights26/06/25 09:23 AM
3

The problem is that you can't push for social consequences when a form of harassment is practiced or at least condoned by the vast majority.
/r/MensRights26/06/25 09:22 AM
1

When you want to refer to what I said, you have to quote me. And if you quoted me you'd find out my words say the opposite of what you attributed to me.
/r/MensRights25/06/25 09:03 PM
0

how do you fail to see imbalance, where a man is basically enslaved for years to pay child support for a child, whose birth was not his decision? Let me answer that by quoting myself: you're making the wrong assumption that I left it out because I considered it unimportant. Do you understand it now?
/r/MensRights25/06/25 06:39 PM
-1

I view self-determination in decisions that involve the human body as a foundation of the Western legal systems, not as a biological matter. Similarly, the legal system is not concerned with hormonal spikes, but with the ability to discriminate right and wrong. As you leave the crux of the problem outside the scope, it might creep up and bite you just in the middle of your speech about how it doesn't exist Again, you're making the wrong assumption that I left it out because I considered it unimp…
/r/MensRights25/06/25 05:14 PM
-1

Ok but that's beyond the scope of my comment. The fact that I didn't mention that issue doesn't mean that I want to pass an opinion.
/r/MensRights25/06/25 04:51 PM
-2

Nah, actual abortion can only be legally justified if desired by the person who's pregnant, because it's a decision about her own body. Of course, that person has to be a woman, but that's legally irrelevant. A pregnant woman can terminate the pregnancy because she has authority over her own body; the father of the unborn creature cannot terminate the pregnancy because he would need to exercise his authority over the pregnant woman's body.
/r/MensRights25/06/25 03:57 PM
1

Let me summarize this: - The writing says "sex toys are better than boys". Nothing else. - Your claim is that the sense of the writing should be limited to the sexual pleasuring aspect, despite the fact that no such specification is present. - You ask what other sense can be read into the writing, and I tell you one can read it as "everything useful a man can do for women, a sex toy can do it better", with the implication that there is no oiher value to men than a (poor) sex toy for women. - The…
/r/EverydayMisandry25/06/25 03:45 PM
2

In which other sense does it make any sense? In the sense that men are only useful for pleasing women, and they're not particularly good at that either.
/r/EverydayMisandry25/06/25 03:09 PM
1

She's not saying she'd rather use a dildo. She's saying the dildo is better than men. In the general sense.
/r/EverydayMisandry25/06/25 02:08 PM
17

We should actually thank them for freely providing such overwhelming evidence that misandry exists, is taught in families, and is socially accepted.
/r/EverydayMisandry25/06/25 11:58 AM
1

Sexual needs are like all other needs. You can hire others to fulfil any need you can't fulfil on your own. We objectify carpenters, plumbers and mechanics. It's not gross, it's how we manage to live. It's society. The worst part here is not objectification per se, but holding a competition between objects and men.
/r/EverydayMisandry25/06/25 11:49 AM
16

It's degrading in two ways: it brings up mental health as a device to silence a debate, and in doing so it is also disrespectful of people who have an actual mental disorder.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/06/25 02:54 PM
14

The tone of the piece clarified that, but I don't underestimate the power of humour in allowing outrageous ideas make their way into the readers' minds.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/06/25 10:18 AM
83

This is the kind of topic that's very hard to discuss because people see it as such a private matter that mentioning it is gross and will react emotionally by calling whoever raises the issue "a creep". Yes, there is double standards here. Male masturbation is shamed as a teenage behaviour that has to disappear in the well-adjusted adult. Female masturbation is appreciated as a way of embracing the self, a part of a full sexual identity; and should it be viewed in a bad light, it has to be a man…
/r/MensRights23/06/25 08:49 AM
1

That's like saying the job market is discriminatory.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/25 08:33 PM
1

If the idea of gay sex is the opposite of a turn on, don't do it, don't watch gay porn, and don't imagine people having gay sex. When you have sex with a straight man, do you imagine all of the other women he's been with or all the other women he may find hot?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/25 04:12 PM
1

Not that many. However, recent statistics show a significant increase of the bisexual population. It sounds like changes in society can trigger different answers.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/25 04:10 PM
1

I advise you to read again the discussion. The hypothesis was that a woman rejects a man based on certain traits, then dates a dozen other men with the same or worse traits. That's the hypothesis of the discussion. If you want to claim that never happens, fine, but it wasn't my claim, I'm merely moving from a point in which this situation had already been assumed as a hypothesis. Based on this hypothesis, I'm adding that when a woman (or a man, that can happen too) displays this kind of behaviou…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/25 04:07 PM
1

It can happen, though of course only few people contradict themselves that openly. But the women who are "claiming to be the biggest LGBTQ allies" can definitely be the same women who see bisexual men as sexually inferior based on their orientation.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/25 03:59 PM
1

That's the point. Women can have gay friends and still have contempt for them.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/25 03:56 PM
1

The reason is the only interesting thing, precisely because the fact itself should not be criticized. You can reject anybody sexually, but if you do it for reasons that are discriminatory, don't expect a prize for that.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/25 03:52 PM
1

how many years ago was that?
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/25 03:46 PM
1

So I suppose viewing bisexual men as unmasculine merely is also toxic.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/25 03:39 PM
1

I'm more interested in the why. Because there is this misconception that women are less homophobic than men because they tend to be more accepting of gay men. The thing is, of course there aren't many reasons to fight over sexual orientation when there is absolutely no chance of intimacy; but that says absolutely nothing about the the view that women have about gay men as _actual men_. When you add bisexual men to the equation, it is immediately clear that a statistically significant number of w…
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/25 03:36 PM
1

It's not hypocrisy because they actually believe the fictional story they are telling about themselves, even when it's contradicted by reality. Hypocrisy has something to do with dishonesty. But this behaviour is not dishonesty, but closer to a psychological disorder.
/r/PurplePillDebate20/06/25 03:26 PM
1

No, it's dialectic. Like in a trial where both parties must be allowed to bring up their own arguments fairly. That's how justice is served.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/06/25 11:55 AM
3

Yeah this is something I agree with.
/r/MensRights12/06/25 05:52 PM
3

Nobody is forcing you, but if you don't do that you haven't made a point. Calling people "sheep" is not a point.
/r/MensRights12/06/25 02:39 PM
1

I'm happy enough, but personal experiences aren't relevant here. Besides, your burden of proof isn't to show that people are unhappy now, but that they would be happier if they did what you suggest.
/r/MensRights12/06/25 01:16 PM
1

Before labelling it as sheep mentality, you have to prove that abandoning it (and thus repressing the human need for sociality) will certainly bring upon greater happiness. And my gut feeling is that such a proof would be very hard to come up with.
/r/MensRights12/06/25 12:48 PM
2

This is an extreme take. Addiction exists, but are we all addicted? I believe most of us just end up going with the flow because we're social animals and being contrarian doesn't make you happy either.
/r/MensRights12/06/25 09:20 AM
0

You're free to elaborate your different opinion.
/r/MensRights11/06/25 11:11 PM
4

You've been rejected by three different guys for three different reasons? Doesn't sound that big of a deal. Besides, I can assure you that the majority of us don't require an E cup; 176 cm is considered an ideal height for a woman by many of us; and you can always try to date someone who isn't 4 years younger than you. Men who are excluded from the dating game face an actual impossibility, not just a preference mismatch.
/r/MensRights11/06/25 11:07 PM
10

Reminds me of when my ex was accusing me of looking at other women. Then I asked her whether she ever laid her eyes on any guy when she was going to the gym. She never answered that.
/r/EverydayMisandry11/06/25 07:41 PM
1

Definition: Patriarchy is a system that uses an artificially enforced sex-gender binary to maintain a hierarchy where women are subservient to men. Failure to adhere to the standards of the system will be punished. Anyone can be punished for this failure, including straight, cisgender, perisex men. Do we believe this is the system we live in? Maybe in Pakistan. The West does not have a hierarchy where women are subservient to men. It does have a hierarchy where most of the people at the top are …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/06/25 04:19 PM
5

Nemo ad impossibilia tenetur. Every trade union, to protect the workers' legitimate interests, will sometimes exceed and make unreasonable demands.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates08/06/25 03:10 PM
3

Yeah but only through male descendants. Women don't carry the original sin.
/r/MensRights08/06/25 11:17 AM
5

You don't know? It was set up by Adam Patriarchal in person!
/r/MensRights07/06/25 10:56 PM
10

I'm pretty sure men's mental health is of interest to gay men as well.
/r/MensRights07/06/25 10:55 PM
1

No, but they are implying that society condones men who are violent against women and in fact fosters that behaviour in boys since childhood. Who is less likely to hear that you should never use violence against the opposite sex: boys or girls? In what world have these people been living?
/r/EverydayMisandry07/06/25 06:23 PM
25

It is generally accepted that women should defend their own interests with no regard for the negative repercussions that that might have on other groups, particularly men. Why can't the reverse be allowed too?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/06/25 12:29 PM
1

Huh, yeah? That's why I don't use those words. Though my feeling is that "bitch" is more the female version of "jerk" (or "dick", "prick" when used to call a man rather than refer to a body part).
/r/MensRights05/06/25 10:18 AM
2

I don't intend to condone the use of those words -- personality I don't use them, and I don't even have a particularly bad opinion of sex workers as a category. But there is a difference. The negative words about women that you've mentioned, refer to unpleasantness or dishonesty (particularly in the form of hypocrisy). The word "incel", on the other hand, implies a complete worthlessness based on opinions. In many cases, legitimate opinions, which just so happen to be critical of feminist or pse…
/r/MensRights02/06/25 11:59 PM
1

Oh absolutely. It's just that those things, while pleasing the instincts of some minorities, are directly harmful to a generality of the population.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/06/25 09:00 AM
1

We do if it's the Highland dress. You're implying that masculinity is objective, but it's entirely not. It's a social construct, and every human being is different in deciding what level of society matters to them. It can shrink down to the individual level. Some feel masculine because they have the strength to successfully oppose the mainstream. What's more masculine than one hero winning over everybody else? Hardly anything or anyone.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/05/25 12:13 PM
1

Masculinity isn't a well defined concept. It's a word that applies to all the meanings of "being a man".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates31/05/25 08:27 AM
0

To me masculinity is the right to live as male members of society and enjoy it without having to feel sorry about it. Whether you feel masculine doing bodybuilding or playing with dolls is absolutely irrelevant. The only relevant thing is enjoying being a man according to your own standard and being respected for it the same way as any other human being would be. Superficially, this definition has such a wide scope that it is meaningless, but it is really not, because society tries to enforce di…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/05/25 06:20 PM
1

I think we're getting lost in definitions, here. I don't buy all the masculinity talk, but I certainly don't want to be made to feel sorry for being a man.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/05/25 06:06 PM
7

Are women really that good at self control? Or is it just that mentioning the mood swings that come with their hormonal cycle has become taboo? I was going to write that maybe they should try being on testosterone for two weeks to understand that men typically control themselves very well (thanks to years and years of training from adolescence onwards). But in retrospect, that's entirely unnecessary.
/r/EverydayMisandry28/05/25 03:43 PM
12

The republicans tell people what they want to hear, the dems say what they want to say to people who are not interested (and are sometimes directly damaged) by that. Two wrongs don't make a right, but the democratic strategy is particularly lousy.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/05/25 03:35 PM
5

It depends on how you translate píthos.
/r/MensRights25/05/25 10:50 PM
9

It's an aspect of being bred to serve a purpose, I'm afraid.
/r/MensRights25/05/25 03:18 PM
13

Diogenes lived in a jar.
/r/MensRights25/05/25 03:12 PM
5

Interestingly, I find that there is a lot of commonality between general men's issues and gay men's issues. But not every man is detached enough to see that. Yes I've seen the kind of comment you're talking about in the past. It's unpleasant.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 09:42 AM
16

Hitting a woman back is very bad advice, even if it is done with proportion. It assumes that men and women are judged according to the same standard, and that is simply not true.
/r/EverydayMisandry21/05/25 08:06 PM
1

Yeah, good point. Understandable, though still not very rational. It's not like society is made in a certain way because of a "decision" of "the men". It's made a certain way, period.
/r/MensRights20/05/25 07:39 PM
7

Yes. I read that. The question is whether they will be drawn into "consensual" sex and how the public will react to it. Most people have an utter disgust for a vulnerable woman, and only a woman, being taken advantage of, consent or not. Whereas a man, of course, should just count himself lucky.
/r/MensRights18/05/25 01:53 AM
9

Will she be lured into the prospects of sex by an older sexually experienced man?
/r/MensRights18/05/25 01:50 AM
9

Nobody here said that it wasn't consensual. The concern that you should address is about the fact that the freedom of consent of vulnerable people is dubious. Society would be protective if those vulnerable people were women.
/r/MensRights18/05/25 01:02 AM
0

Personally I'm not into exceedingly feminine men, but what you're writing has no general bearing. In fact it's not that hard to find objectively good looking feminine men. Let me link an example: https://www.instagram.com/thesocialprince/
/r/MensRights17/05/25 11:02 PM
1

There's absolutely no risk of that for me. However I did discover that there are guys who are excellent substitutes for women and I would say typically more pleasant under most points of view. Being bi is a godsend, I wish I had embraced it earlier.
/r/MensRights17/05/25 10:57 PM
2

No man who's had a healthy relationship with his mum during childhood can ever hate women. This doesn't look like a way to develop a healthy relationship with her son.
/r/MensRights17/05/25 01:25 AM
14

That's a hell of a solution. If these women are so desperate, maybe they should be roaming on incel communities and find instant sexual satisfaction.
/r/BlackPillScience14/05/25 09:44 AM
1

Even though this is the kind of study that needs to be taken with a pinch of salt (it's very hard to reduce human behaviour to a few objective parameters), this outcome would be unsurprising if only society didn't live in perpetual denial.
/r/BlackPillScience14/05/25 09:23 AM
8

Nutrition was vastly improving in the 60s, so that was true at the time.
/r/BlackPillScience14/05/25 09:18 AM
1

I sort of agree with the meme. Gender wars are idiotic.
/r/EverydayMisandry06/05/25 09:51 AM
10

Men are sensitive!!! Off with their heads!!!
/r/EverydayMisandry30/04/25 04:06 PM
3

When the words "toxic masculinity" are tossed around, I think mainly of two aspects: (toxic) stoicism, which forbids men from ever thinking of themselves as victims, regardless of circumstances, and conformism, making it a crime for men to enjoy any kind of activity or behaviour that are not accepted in stereotypical masculinity. As for toxic femininity, the first thing that comes to mind is the dual of stoicism: victimhood, or the inability of most women to see themselves as anything but victim…
/r/EverydayMisandry26/04/25 10:46 PM
7

Because trans men are willingly giving away privilege: what would the purpose of targeting them be?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/04/25 06:05 PM
1

I don't appreciate too much when we try to regulate the dress code. It makes me feel like one of those Iranian priests.
/r/MensRights19/04/25 04:50 PM
4

They definitely did when I was younger. Heck, my dad probably still does, at the age of 77, if he's doing some work on the family plot. Are you gonna tell him it's unprofessional?
/r/MensRights19/04/25 10:17 AM
3

Yeah. Though I was very shocked to see how many MTF trans people have a strong disliking for men in general.
/r/MensRights19/04/25 09:54 AM
7

I don't know what you mean by "not walking around". They don't walk around, but they're still in a public space.
/r/MensRights19/04/25 01:05 AM
12

Surely men who do physical work, like construction, road works, non-mechanised farming, have a very good reason to be shirtless on a warm day?
/r/MensRights19/04/25 12:00 AM
3

We can't, indeed, use logic to choose the axioms that we will use in our logic. But I agree with you: too many exceptions and special rules are a problem. That's why it would be better to do away with sex-based discrimination, except in those cases where it is inevitable because they involve, say, reproduction, and reproduction is closely linked to sex.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/04/25 08:07 AM
3

You said you wanted the division of society into men and women to be "universal". If you allow three sexes then you're changing the hypotheses -- no wonder my statement becomes invalid! However, "intersex" is not a third sex but a plurality of conditions, some of which are closer to male, other to female. A scientific taxonomy exists, but deriving social consequences from it is not a scientific act.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates17/04/25 12:09 AM
11

They should meet my ex wife. Retaliation is her favourite activity, and very few people can beat her at that game. Certainly not me.
/r/EverydayMisandry16/04/25 11:25 PM
2

Because the existence of intersex people is a scientific fact.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/04/25 11:06 PM
4

And such a definition cannot be of a scientific nature. What do we do when every attempt to regulate a certain matter create paradoxical consequences? Very often, the best thing to do is to think again at what you're trying to do, because you're very likely to have misunderstood the problem you want to solve.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/04/25 10:54 PM
2

Before getting there, you'd need to prove that gender-gates are an effective method of distributing social justice. Maybe they are, maybe they're not; or maybe, and this is what I consider most likely, they are only effective for some instances of social justice. My conjecture is that we could do a better job if we replaced gender-gates by multiple, objective characteristics. For instance, pregnancy is objective and it's reasonable for it to grant some additional protections. On the other hand, …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/04/25 10:34 PM
5

Yeah your fears seem to be reasonable. And if the downvoting lurker wants to contribute as well, they are welcome.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/04/25 09:07 PM
5

I don't think the problem with the left is that it protects minorities, but that it's now cherry-picking what minorities deserve protection. When you start doing that, you give up on creating a society that works for most, in favour of a delusional utopia where most have to make an effort for those who are perceived as the unlucky few.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/04/25 08:46 PM
8

But then they'd need to allow biological women like Shay Price in the ladies' room/.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/04/25 05:44 PM
6

As I understand it, trans people aren't disallowed from using their preferred washroom because nobody is. There doesn't seem to be a law to prevent me, a cis man, from using the ladies' washroom. Now, normally no one would do that, but I wonder if the matter may become more significant now that the door has been pointed at.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/04/25 05:23 PM
9

I haven't done any research on this matter, but this analysis seems to say that it was the judges' intention to give an interpretation of the law that minimizes the unwanted side effects of certain provisions. This is a very typical concern in the judiciary and I tend to believe it (but judges are as human as the lawmakers, and they may create more unwanted effects with their decisions).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/04/25 04:51 PM
3

Then I'll say this "victory" has gone beyond the expectations of the traditionalist field.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/04/25 04:20 PM
3

Does it also work backwards? Can someone demand not to be discriminated because their sex at birth was female? Or in other words, can a trans man demands access to women's only spaces?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/04/25 03:56 PM
24

Somewhat ironically, as far as I can tell, the decision in question makes Imane Khelif unequivocally female regardless of any genetic testing, as her birth certificate was issued according to the biological definition of sex.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/04/25 02:29 PM
81

The real question is: what are the consequences of this decision? What are trans people allowed or not allowed to do based on this? Do trans men have to use the ladies' washrooms now?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/04/25 02:21 PM
2

I'd avoid generalizing, but certain radical views that today are popular among feminists are a form of religion. In fact are very clearly a derivative of puritanism. Just replace "original sin" with "being born with a penis", and "God's grace" with "women's favour", and the rest comes by itself.
/r/EverydayMisandry16/04/25 12:09 PM
25

Wait, what? Sexual orientation is now a choice? Does this person have an idea of the consequences of saying something like that?
/r/EverydayMisandry16/04/25 11:54 AM
11

A number of religions have a difficult time accepting the principles of liberal democracy, so I can see why some people who care about liberal democracy would be wary of certain demographics turning to religion.
/r/EverydayMisandry15/04/25 02:53 AM
1

The rule is that you should never hit each other. In the case of men, that rule is taught and enforced by society. We should demand that society teach the same rule to women as well. Even if a woman hits you, refrain from hitting back unless there is substantial risk to you, and even in that case only limit your self defence to as much physical force as is needed to escape danger. The risk of triggering an escalation is too big and for your own good you should avoid it at all cost.
/r/MensRights10/04/25 09:35 PM
0

But the question then is: what makes people presume that parents do a worse job at raising boys compared to girls? Are there any grounds to this assumption that, otherwise, feels rather discriminatory?
/r/EverydayMisandry07/04/25 02:34 PM
31

I think the management at Bumble concluded that too many women aren't willing to make the effort that it takes to start conversations with men.
/r/EverydayMisandry30/03/25 01:06 PM
16

Not just by women, but by men too. It's rather easy to spot the slur: it always comes with an implication. You are an incel, therefore you cannot speak., You are an incel, therefore your opinion is worthless. You are an incel, therefore you're wrong and I'm right. Since the emphasis is really on the "therefore" part of the statement, it doesn't really matter whether the person is an actual incel according to the literal definition: in fact, the person speaking has all the interest in making the …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates30/03/25 03:50 AM
78

It went like this: - You're going to keep a respectful distance? don't threaten me with a good time - It's not a threat. It's inevitably gonna happen. - ...Maybe I hadn't thought this through... Men are so bad that they are weaponizing respect against us!
/r/EverydayMisandry30/03/25 03:36 AM
3

Yes. But I think the emphasis wasn't on the choice, but on the double standards once that choice is made.
/r/EverydayMisandry27/03/25 01:21 AM
12

Misogyny is the hatred of women: surely some people hate women, and some people hate men. The problem is when some people can only see those situations that reinforce their prejudices. That's why we need more social experiments like this.
/r/MensRights25/03/25 08:07 PM
17

The fallacy here is that if a certain group has it hard, then they are entitled to leniency in all of their misconducts.
/r/MensRights25/03/25 07:53 PM
1

Then dismantle your army. When you're defenseless, you won't be able to make any war.
/r/MensRights25/03/25 11:36 AM
0

The point is that Russia broke the pact precisely because NATO kept their word.
/r/MensRights25/03/25 11:35 AM
3

And with this, we can close the discussion, since you have now turned it into a game of political positioning. Yes, my rights are better protected in a liberal democracy. Enjoy your authoritarian regimes.
/r/MensRights24/03/25 04:22 PM
2

Sure. And if you consider them case by case you will see that there are precise geopolitical reasons that made that choice possible. However the question I posed was another one: if you think that even defending your own country from an invasion is "pro war", it means that you don't see any legitimate reason for the existence of the military. THEREFORE are you going to campaign for the abolition of the military in your own country? Thank you very much.
/r/MensRights24/03/25 04:17 PM
3

So basically you are saying that Putin intends to cause a war that would end up annihilating him, as long as he gets to cause a global disaster. Rather than enjoy his absolute autocratic power within the geographical limits of the country he dominates. Yeah, sure.
/r/MensRights24/03/25 04:14 PM
5

Nato doesn't have the capability to fight back Russia? Of course it does. Plenty. That's why if we allowed Ukraine into Nato in time, there wouldn't have been a war.
/r/MensRights24/03/25 04:07 PM
5

Really? So he'll do it anyway, because he notoriously intends to seize the Baltic countries too. And what do you do to an enemy who decides to nuke you? I guess they'll get nuked back. So no, it wouldn't have happened, for the same reason why it didn't happen during the cold war: deterrence.
/r/MensRights24/03/25 04:00 PM
1

If even people who uphold the right of invaded countries to defend themselves are called "pro war", what's the purpose of armed forces? Dismantle your military please, it's got no legitimate reason to exist unless you're pro war.
/r/MensRights24/03/25 03:55 PM
-1

What NATO expansion are you talking about? NATO didn't want Ukraine in because it thought that annoying Putin by allowing that country into the Western orbit would open a can of worms that we had no interest in opening. Heck, I thought the exact same thing: sorry Ukraine, politics ain't fair. Wishing to be in the Western club isn't enough to actually get in, because we want to keep decent relationships with certain autocracies too. It turned out that we had got everything wrong: Russia invaded U…
/r/MensRights24/03/25 03:51 PM
1

It's interesting that a concrete explanation of what would have definitely avoided the death of many men gets downvoted. It's almost as if people didn't really care much about those deaths.
/r/MensRights24/03/25 03:30 PM
3

Are you trying to turn a discussion about the injustice of this war into a discussion about the benefits of abiding by the law of the strongest? Please.
/r/MensRights24/03/25 03:27 PM
-2

My friend, if you want to abolish the draft, the time to do it is when you're not under attack. And the only realistic way to prevent it would have been to allow Ukraine into NATO before Putin decided to attack it: deterrence is the best way to avoid war. By opposing Ukraine's access to NATO, we are responsible for those deaths.
/r/MensRights24/03/25 12:02 PM
1

I'm pretty sure "human beings" is at least as general as "men and women".
/r/MensRights24/03/25 10:35 AM
0

"I'm attracted to both men and women" vs "I'm attracted to human beings": the fact that the distinction doesn't matter to you doesn't mean that it doesn't matter to anybody. However, as I said, I'm not really into labels and the real attractiveness of "pan" is that it is more generic than other labels.
/r/MensRights24/03/25 10:11 AM
7

Why stop there? Maybe the USA should completely get rid of their own armed forces. You wouldn't want people to think you only suggest disarming the countries that don't matter to you.
/r/MensRights24/03/25 02:15 AM
42

You do realize Russian men are dying too. And without a legitimate reason for them to be sent to war.
/r/MensRights23/03/25 06:40 PM
2

I'm not proposing stuff, as much as I'm saying that we don't understand much of what is biologically determined, socially determined, psychologically determined.
/r/MensRights23/03/25 04:58 PM
-1

I'm not really into alphabet soups, but the homo/straight partition, with or without bisexuality at the intersection, isn't set in stone. It's one way of looking at people's preferences that became popular in the last 100-200 years. As for pansexuality, I'd describe it as "attraction to whomever you find hot".
/r/MensRights23/03/25 03:41 PM
2

The funny thing is that I've heard so many women talk proudly about their weekends spent in company of their magic wand.
/r/EverydayMisandry19/03/25 11:05 PM
1

I am open to feminism in the same way as I am open to the union of transportation workers. With the notable difference that the union of transportation workers doesn't claim to act in the best interest of everybody, and if they did nobody would take that claim as something serious.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates18/03/25 03:03 AM
3

Well, I didn't want to write that, but gym bros appreciating each other's results is one of the best things in life, indeed 😹
/r/EverydayMisandry17/03/25 05:49 PM
34

Where are all these shirtless men at the gym? 😹 Don't women often wear much more revealing outfits than men at the gym? Just yesterday I had to turn my eyes away from a girl who passed one meter away from me, out of concern that I would end up staring inappropriately at her, given what she was wearing.
/r/EverydayMisandry17/03/25 12:36 PM
1

You could make a case that "patriarchy" is about fathers granting special protection to daughters, and brothers to sisters, as compared to what sons and other brothers get. But that's not the kind of patriarchy some people want to hear about.
/r/EverydayMisandry16/03/25 10:56 AM
2

If a man claimed to have been hit by his girlfriend with a club for no sensible reason, and you didn't have access to the girl's statement, wouldn't you have any doubt whatsoever about his account? The facts as stated just don't add up.
/r/EverydayMisandry13/03/25 02:49 PM
2

Isn't it more accurate to say that the girl's own account was that she "accidentally" slapped her bf too hard?
/r/EverydayMisandry13/03/25 02:28 PM
3

Tell them thats what racists say about black people and then invite them to do better. Yeah, last time I was told there was a huge deal of argumentation freely available, explaining how that's a false equivalence.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/03/25 11:09 AM
10

I think we can all agree that it's important for unions to defend workers' rights, but then we've also seen unions defend workers who were responsible for bad stuff.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/03/25 04:48 PM
16

Feminism is unionized womanhood. It is ok for it to exist, and to a certain degree it's a good thing that it exists, but in the end it's exists to uphold the interests of a part of society and we shouldn't be bullied into believing that feminism is good for everybody.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/03/25 01:22 PM
-1

That's not mature.
/r/EverydayMisandry07/03/25 07:54 PM
-2

And that is still irrelevant to the matter at hand. We don't question intentions, we don't call mental health into question, just to discredit words that patently don't make any sense. Besides, she's 17 and that may be a better reason not to take her words seriously.
/r/EverydayMisandry07/03/25 07:53 PM
1

Foreign policy suddenly becomes domestic policy when it comes to get you.
/r/MensRights07/03/25 07:48 PM
3

The UK is a very old democracy that evolved gradually from absolute monarchy. What it lacks, mostly, is rule by higher law: it is a very controversial idea, in the UK, that a Parliament should be allowed to limit the power of all Parliaments after it. The Parliament is sovereign, whenever it approves its decisions into law.
/r/MensRights07/03/25 07:39 PM
1

I agree with meeralakshmi that it's entirely unnecessary to bring up the girl being trans. The reasons behind her transition are irrelevant to this post.
/r/EverydayMisandry07/03/25 07:05 PM
1

That post fails to make any point, as it doesn't specify what kind of "wrongness" is attached to the popularity of OnlyFans. And if you can't say what wrongness you want to address, how can you figure out who's responsible for it?
/r/EverydayMisandry07/03/25 12:01 PM
1

It's called a rhetorical question. Yes, you've answered it, but in doing so you made it sound as if I couldn't tell that the woman's account was likely inaccurate. Instead, that was my whole point.
/r/EverydayMisandry07/03/25 02:25 AM
3

Duh, yeah? That's why I said it doesn't add up.
/r/EverydayMisandry06/03/25 11:06 PM
2

That's precisely what I meant.
/r/EverydayMisandry06/03/25 10:53 PM
2

Yeah, that sounds likely (and I have no idea why I'm being downvoted).
/r/EverydayMisandry06/03/25 08:52 PM
-7

The situation as described is silly. If it was a playfight why would he snap, even if she used too much energy? It doesn't add up.
/r/EverydayMisandry06/03/25 01:29 PM
10

Well. It may be the way the article is written, but the claim of manipulation is given without a shred of evidence. It does make you feel that she's being treated gently just because.
/r/MensRights05/03/25 01:06 PM
7

That has to be rage bait.
/r/EverydayMisandry28/02/25 10:26 AM
1

People should care more for each other.
/r/MensRights25/02/25 04:50 PM
2

What does this have to do with gender even? Women don't masturbate?
/r/EverydayMisandry24/02/25 11:38 AM
1

Let's not split hairs. This is the one place in Reddit where if the same thing happened with the genders switched, and the man stated that he didn't want that kiss, people would have clearly seen how fucked up it was. Rubiales didn't get a prison sentence: he got a fine because he screwed up. It seems to be a proportionate. Of course if the same happened with a male football player and a federation chairwoman, I expect the same outcome.
/r/MensRights22/02/25 09:00 PM
33

Whether it's sexual assault or not depends on what the law says, but unwanted exchange of bodily fluids feels like something that can reasonably be sanctioned, even if the fluid in question is saliva.
/r/MensRights21/02/25 02:30 AM
10

Where exactly are all these men thinking that women owe them dates?
/r/EverydayMisandry20/02/25 08:25 PM
12

I agree it's probably fake. Those comments are scary, though.
/r/EverydayMisandry18/02/25 06:06 PM
3

As a person who supports abortion rights, I have to point out that embryos do not have the neurological capacity to be considered kids.
/r/EverydayMisandry18/02/25 09:58 AM
12

You can go to the Wikipedia page about sexual objectification for a detailed discussion of the concept. Here I will only highlight that the first picture used in the page to illustrate the concept is a photo of a bikini contest, in which clearly the contestants weren't forced to objectify themselves at gunpoint.
/r/MensRights18/02/25 09:34 AM
7

I mean, I don't know if there would be an uproar, but these double standards are known. A decrepit man desiring a pretty young woman? Ew, gross. An old lady feeling the muscles of a male stripper? Aww at her age she still has needs.
/r/MensRights17/02/25 02:15 PM
5

See what you're doing? Trying to feel bigger by humiliating others. That's pretty pathetic.
/r/MensRights17/02/25 02:10 PM
2

But that's a particularly extreme take on the black pill. I tend to think that accepting that there are things beyond your control is a form of maturity, and if someone has experienced repeated failures in trying to date, it's very likely that being accepted by women as a sexual mate is beyond his control. The only alternative we give to this people is to push them to make unreasonable efforts in the attempt to please women. And when all these efforts fail, it's only natural that they will fall …
/r/MensRights16/02/25 10:56 PM
11

Uh Domestic Abuse In Public! (Social Experiment) - YouTube
/r/MensRights11/02/25 02:05 PM
15

Wait, did this actually happen?
/r/EverydayMisandry10/02/25 09:23 PM
-2

Alright, they don't want to explain. They just want to downvote. Pathetic.
/r/EverydayMisandry10/02/25 10:57 AM
16

There are at least two problems with the meme. 1) It misrepresents men, by implying that a minority behaviour is the norm 2) It bullies men into bottling up negativity, by weaponizing the (misunderstood) stoicism that society requires of men (but not of women).
/r/EverydayMisandry10/02/25 01:35 AM
-1

Do the downvoters want to explain why the opinion that humiliating the less fortunate is not the act of a well adjusted adult should be considered negatively?
/r/EverydayMisandry10/02/25 12:31 AM
1

A live one of what?
/r/EverydayMisandry10/02/25 12:09 AM
0

There's no grown-up version of slur. You should be asking yourself why unsuccessful people who get no sympathy whatsoever bother you so much. It's usually caused by deep-seated insecurities.
/r/EverydayMisandry09/02/25 11:10 PM
-2

I don't particularly enjoy the use of middle school jargon like "loser".
/r/EverydayMisandry09/02/25 10:09 PM
4

*when they believe they have a common enemy
/r/EverydayMisandry07/02/25 12:07 PM
10

When you think of the reluctance that we, men, have in speaking out about our problems, you have to conclude it's starting to be a major issue.
/r/MensRights02/02/25 03:58 PM
2

Feminism is about women's rights, just like workers' unions are about workers' rights. If such rights come at the expense of any other category, if they're abused, you can't expect unions or feminists to acknowledge that in the name of equality.
/r/EverydayMisandry28/01/25 04:02 PM
1

Let's not give in to imagination, please.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/01/25 12:33 AM
1

It's #4 for me., Most of us learn not to engage in a confrontation with a woman, because it's frowned upon and because we know there are consequences.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/01/25 11:45 AM
7

The first illustration in the Wikipedia page about sexual objectification is young women in a bikini contest. One has to imagine they aren't being objectified against their will.
/r/EverydayMisandry27/01/25 11:37 AM
1

What came across is "yes women do think about sex, but in a way that's different from men, so it's still meaningful to point out that men constantly think about sex". And that's about the same thing as saying that double standards are justified because men and women are different: different standards for different people.
/r/MensRights25/01/25 04:07 PM
1

How is that even relevant? You should have said "yes women need sex too, but women = good and men = bad": same meaning, less effort.
/r/MensRights25/01/25 04:01 PM
1

If you follow Freudian psychoanalysis, sex is motivation for everything men and women do.
/r/MensRights25/01/25 10:28 AM
17

Actually I think most of the time it's a dare/prank.
/r/MensRights19/01/25 11:31 AM
25

I don't know how prevalent it is, but it does happen.
/r/MensRights19/01/25 11:08 AM
15

Don't complain about misandry or the society will become even more misandric? Sounds like victim blaming to me.
/r/EverydayMisandry18/01/25 02:40 PM
3

That I don't care how you call our social system: it's one that's propagated in large part by women.
/r/MensRights16/01/25 08:49 AM
11

Feminists organic to the movement are relatively scarce, but feminists of convenience who've picked a few ideological weapons that are particularly suited to their character and situation are so widespread that I'd be skeptical of any man who claims he's never met one. And how have I dealt with them? With a lot of stoicism, and throwing them out of my life as soon as I could.
/r/MensRights16/01/25 02:09 AM
13

It's interesting that the point of this comparison is to give women a free pass to behave like chihuahuas, but not men one to behave like pitbulls. When you think of it, she's expecting composed, human behaviour from men, but not from women. It's almost as if she meant that women are less human than men.
/r/EverydayMisandry15/01/25 10:39 AM
1

Fautores tantum.
/r/MensRights07/01/25 12:41 PM
2

That's an entirely unrelated matter. I have explained why "incel" works better than "misogynist" as an insult, despite its literal meaning having nothing to do with misogyny: there's plenty of involuntarily celibate men who are not misogynist, probably a large majority, and there's plenty of men having abundant sex with numerous women who are extremely misogynistic. The reason for that is that "incel" is the same kind of insult as "f----t": it states that a man is unmanly. And that is, of course…
/r/MensRights01/01/25 11:14 AM
3

Nope. If you wanted to call out misogyny, there would be no better word than "misogynist". However, "misogyny" isn't a good slur because it only attacks characteristics that we care about at an intellectual level, but not at a deeply rooted psychological level. "Incel" works better than "misogynist" because it is an attack on manliness, and that makes it entirely analogous to f----t.
/r/MensRights01/01/25 11:02 AM
3

Asshole is originally the same insult as f----t, but metonymy makes it less obvious and thus it hasn't become politically incorrect. "Incel", however, is entirely obvious and thus the analogy with f----t stands.
/r/MensRights01/01/25 10:52 AM
4

But the question is: why call someone who's not celibate an involuntary celibate? The answer is trivial: because that way you get to attack his virility. "Incel" is just the more modern and for now socially acceptable version of "f----t". It's ironic, but not really surprising, that whole feminism claims it really to overthrow patriarchy, it couldn't figure out any better insulting quality for men than those that are traditionally spread by patriarchal society: not being manly enough.
/r/MensRights01/01/25 10:44 AM
3

You may have missed the memo that said the word incel can now be used for men who are in a (fully functional) relationship.
/r/MensRights01/01/25 10:18 AM
2

Just like f----t literally stands for male homosexual. But the real value of both these words lies not in their literal meaning, but in the attack to one's virility.
/r/MensRights01/01/25 10:16 AM
3

Incel is used just about any time people want to shut up an opinion that's critical of women. Even critical of some women. Also, there are plenty of decent guys who can't get laid and I don't see why they should blame themselves for that.
/r/MensRights01/01/25 10:14 AM
9

It means both things depending on what aspect you want to weaponise at any given time. And if you're called out for using it as a slur, there's plausible deniability: "I didn't mean that, I meant the other thing".
/r/MensRights01/01/25 09:10 AM
1

I could definitely work with a notion of murder aggravated by sex/gender/orientation hate, but that's not the same as "femicide".
/r/MensRights28/12/24 12:58 PM
10

Just a few days ago I read in the news about an Italian comedic actress who's written a theatrical pièce on the sorrow of women stuck in a sexless relationship. Ah the irony.
/r/EverydayMisandry28/12/24 09:40 AM
13

It's an ill-defined concept, and as such you can easily motivate its existence and also its inexistence.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates25/12/24 05:04 PM
9

In these matters there is no objective frame of reference. Hypersensitivity to minor harassment episodes ain't "naturally good" either.
/r/EverydayMisandry24/12/24 08:22 AM
2

I wouldn't have a problem with the wording "gender motivated violence", but of course that means it can be used in both directions. That is, even if the victim is a man.
/r/MensRights21/12/24 09:03 PM
2

Honestly, I don't think I can make a choice. I presume I'll save the one that I'm better positioned to save.
/r/MensRights21/12/24 08:45 PM
19

Unfortunately, the word was the right choice.
/r/EverydayMisandry16/12/24 01:03 PM
1

The law of the UAE is off topic. The question is whether you are defending what that woman did and for what reasons.
/r/EverydayMisandry16/12/24 10:14 AM
6

Are you suggesting that she should be forced to see a doctor for her own well-being?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates15/12/24 02:10 PM
1

Dissemination, I suppose. I don't see anything wrong with personal use.
/r/EverydayMisandry14/12/24 04:32 PM
1

The boy's family should know. They must have reasons not to divulge her name.
/r/EverydayMisandry12/12/24 12:08 PM
1

A 18 year old girl having consensual sex with a 17 year old boy in Dubai. No parent would have reported the girl. You might want to explain how the strap-on would be pertinent. Also, the girl is not in jail.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/12/24 12:02 PM
1

His post is replying to someone who is not from the far left. And trust me, if the attempted coup had been pro left, I would be saying the exact same thing.
/r/MensRights09/12/24 06:09 PM
3

I have some personal experience with #3. Running away takes swift action and luck, because she won't normally want to let you leave the place.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates09/12/24 12:45 PM
1

Ah, if the far left does that, then it's ok if the right does it too. I'm a centrist, btw.
/r/MensRights09/12/24 03:57 AM
0

I don't know what the news tells you in the US, but in reputable democracies we don't want that to happen. That is, if reputable democracies will survive this decade, given the number of things the public opinion is starting to accept in many western countries.
/r/MensRights09/12/24 03:55 AM
-5

The Capitol attack comes to mind.
/r/MensRights09/12/24 01:07 AM
1

Well, all I can say is that if the right was more presentable than it's been in recent times, I wouldn't feel forced to vote for the left.
/r/MensRights09/12/24 01:06 AM
5

But he's speaking based on his own experience and noting the hypocrisy of all the men who talk big about mental health and then are the first to shame men in difficult situations or make fun of them. Yeah, sort of. Tbh that experience doesn't sound very common, but I digress. The real problem is that the reasoning "some men who talk about men's mental health have been nasty to me, therefore we must not care about men's mental health (including my own?)" is not defensible. Also, while OOP is clea…
/r/EverydayMisandry07/12/24 10:00 AM
7

Patriarchy is a word. Whether it exists or not, it depends on the meaning you assign to it. I tend to agree that in the Western society the minority of people in positions of power -- political, economical, social, etc. -- are more often men than women (how often, I can't say for sure), but I'm sceptical that this power is used in a way that makes women generally more oppressed than men: men (and women) who hold power, use it for their own benefit, not the benefit of other men (or other women). …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/12/24 11:28 AM
1

I don't agree with the two options that were brought forward, but certain psychological mechanisms (denial, unreasonable irritation, etc.) always have an inner psychological cause, a psychological conflict. What this conflict is about, we cannot say for sure without knowing this man's history.
/r/EverydayMisandry06/12/24 01:21 AM
1

Doesn't the prosecution offer both alternatives to the jury? Murder if they consider the intent to kill proved, manslaughter if they don't
/r/MensRights04/12/24 01:11 PM
1

Well, I understand saving tax money: as a taxpayer I'm very stingy too. However, saving money on a straightforward case of murder? Maybe, I don't know. It just feels like the prosecution's attorneys can offer plea deals on many other lesser crimes before considering turning a murder into manslaughter. And it's not just about prison time: the word "murder" carries a much heavier weight than "manslaughter".
/r/MensRights04/12/24 11:02 AM
2

Technically I should have said that his axioms shouldn't be accepted, and that the proof he gave is invalid even under those axioms; but please, cut me some slack in this informal conversation 😉 As for the rest, I agree.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/12/24 09:14 PM
1

Agreed. His logic is first and foremost horrible. Secondarily, his reasoning is flawed even under his own horrible logic.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/12/24 05:55 PM
9

Because people don't respect the basic principles of the western legal systems. What we should say is homicide with aggravating circumstances (gender hate). Instead people use inherently sexist terms absolving themselves because "it's positive sexism".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/12/24 10:28 AM
15

Sounds like the prosecution wasn't sure they could win the case. How that is possible, I've got no clue.
/r/MensRights03/12/24 09:55 AM
40

"Remember who set it up". Who set it up? Adam Patriarchal?
/r/EverydayMisandry02/12/24 12:43 PM
8

I think the point isn't Miley Cyrus or whatever background made her believe what she tweeted, but the fact that society as a whole fails to see how toxic that is, except maybe to the LG(B?)T community (I'd argue that bi/pansexual people can and will choose one gender over the other if they feel like it, so it's funny that she was criticized for the one aspect that could be defended). So while one could excuse her for having twisted views based on possibly bad experiences, we cannot excuse societ…
/r/MensRights01/12/24 01:55 PM
4

Since the meaning of words matters so much to you, let me remark that the word is PATRIarchy, not ANDRarchy. The assumption that we live in a system where generally men (and not specifically /patres/) have more power than women just based on gender, goes way beyond the meaning of the word.
/r/MensRights01/12/24 12:08 AM
7

Ah, an evergreen: sarcasm about men experiencing negative feelings. Yet another proof of women being the more compassionate gender.
/r/EverydayMisandry30/11/24 01:58 PM
7

Tbh I've never heard a man my age demand housework from his wife/girlfriend. And I'm not that young. I've always washed my own clothes and if it ever happened that housework was unbalanced, it was because she had very specific ideas of what the house should look like. As for the rest of the requirements, aren't those the bare minimum that should be expected of any person in a relationship, no matter whether they are a man or a woman (save for giving birth, for biological reasons).
/r/EverydayMisandry30/11/24 01:49 PM
10

"Manage their emotions" takes the cake, here. I never thought I'd see the day in which people demand that they shouldn't be expected to care for the feelings of the one they're in a relationship with.
/r/EverydayMisandry30/11/24 01:36 PM
2

Regardless of the debatable evidence he chose (dogs are generally not considered unmasculine, except maybe toy breeds; one could possibly make a case that cats are viewed as more feminine, but we're in 2024 ffs), this guy is expressing his frustration with society enforcing gender stereotypes, and I support him. The real misandry is demanding that all men fit a template decided by the powers that be.
/r/EverydayMisandry30/11/24 12:20 PM
3

One thing that people seem unable to understand is that repeated minor physical abuse and verbal abuse can often trigger severe responses. I know for a fact that women hate it when a man is able to control his reactions in the face of their anger, and will try their worst to make sure he loses his temper and they get to play the victim card. No person should be put in a situation where they have to fear they'll lose control of themselves.
/r/EverydayMisandry29/11/24 06:53 AM
7

Agreed. On a certain occasion, my ex shouted insults at me for three (actual) days. On the fourth day, she wouldn't let me leave the house and I had to call the police. Only then did she stop.
/r/EverydayMisandry28/11/24 07:29 PM
7

Even less than that. Just a few months.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/11/24 07:17 PM
6

The young man may be stupid. The girl's mother is definitely wicked.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/11/24 05:07 PM
4

Because she would never have been reported by a dad angry that she had been intimate with his son.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates28/11/24 12:22 AM
4

The misandry lies in the fact that if you switch the role of the two teenagers, this would never have happened.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/11/24 11:53 PM
3

It varies with the legal framework, which is based on local culture. Clearly in the UAE it's not allowed; but it's senseless and deplorable for a British woman to report it.
/r/EverydayMisandry26/11/24 12:34 PM
3

I think the UAE has been known to fine and deport tourists when they've got no interest in prosecuting, and I hope this will be the case too, but what that woman did doesn't sit right with me.
/r/EverydayMisandry26/11/24 01:11 AM
7

Agreed. The expression is so imprecise sand confusing that it could mean anything.
/r/EverydayMisandry25/11/24 09:46 PM
5

What does the Emirates' law have to do with the girl s mum's actions?
/r/EverydayMisandry25/11/24 08:04 PM
11

My guess is if you swap the sexes it wouldn't have happened, regardless of racism.
/r/EverydayMisandry25/11/24 02:55 PM
1

I'm gonna say that misconducts of this degree, when enacted by a minor, should be dealt with by frowning upon them rather than with criminal sentences.
/r/MensRights25/11/24 02:01 PM
14

Besides what I read in the article, the only other thing I heard is that the girl's family is ethnically Indian.
/r/EverydayMisandry25/11/24 12:13 PM
2

I don't really care about her OF, whether she has one or not.
/r/MensRights25/11/24 11:47 AM
2

I think the point here is orthogonal to whether Thatcher was good or bad. Many have pointed out that while the Left does all the talk in being pro women, the Right often puts them in positions of power first, precisely because people like Thatcher, May, Merkel, or today Meloni in Italy are not women who happen to be politicians, but politicians who happen to be women. Personally I don't like these names and I loathe some of them, but shouldn't this be the goal, for women to be treated equally?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates24/11/24 02:59 PM
7

Wow, this is a great video. I'm surprised it's not receiving comments, but maybe it's because he's already said everything.
/r/EverydayMisandry24/11/24 03:09 AM
-1

This should be a post about children's rights, not men's rights. Forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of a one sided story shared by the Right. The Right has an agenda, and part of that agenda employs the claim that the Left is led by unhinged people who desire to castrate humanity. This particular case, if true, would be especially outrageous because of the apparent circumstance that a mother, a judge, and physicians would have banded together to damage a young boy, acting on a common psychologica…
/r/MensRights21/11/24 02:34 PM
4

I find it particularly worrying that whoever designed this slide thinks that the burden of proof should be lifted from the accuser.
/r/EverydayMisandry20/11/24 12:37 PM
13

2 years 8 months is exceedingly lenient for assisted murder: it makes me wonder what this "assistance" consisted of. That kind of jail time is appropriate for minor crimes, the kind that would be appropriate to be converted to house arrest in case of prison overcrowding. So I'm wondering: either his sentence was ridiculous from the beginning, and this decision adds insult to injury, or maybe the deeds he was convicted for are less serious than the title would make us think?
/r/EverydayMisandry16/11/24 05:17 PM
18

Yes but I wouldn't blame the influencers for selling something that we've always considered an ideal male body. You can go back at least 40 years to the He-Man cartoons (or should I say ancient Greece and their statues of gods?), it's always been like that. Unrealistic standards can be problematic, they can lead to substance abuse, but I reject the idea that they are linked to a supposed patriarchal reaction. We've all had the experience of feeling inferior to the better looking schoolmate, and …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/11/24 03:51 PM
73

God forbid a man were allowed to be vain!
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates16/11/24 02:11 PM
29

To put it simply, yes. Except cases in which there is an objective reason, such as in situations that do not affect men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/11/24 12:14 PM
3

Invalidating other people's experiences: you're doing it well. Congratulations.
/r/EverydayMisandry12/11/24 11:41 AM
3

I mean, if some women want to explain their reaction to unwanted male attention by comparing it to homophobic reactions, who am I to tell them they shouldn't? Many straight men handle being approached by gay men politely, no drama. It can even be an ego boost.
/r/EverydayMisandry12/11/24 11:31 AM
0

Considering that I do agree that we don't live in the kind of social system that feminists and allies describe, and you don't want to make a lexical debate, why did you reply to me precisely?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/11/24 01:40 PM
0

Nah, the problem isn't the word in itself, but ignorance of its meaning. Let me say it again: patriarchy does not mean "leadership of the men" because the Greek root for man is not patr-, but andr-. And when people are ignorant, you can make them believe whatever makes them feel comfortable with any means. Starting a lexical debate is not gonna change that.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/11/24 01:30 PM
0

A rose by any other name. Names are fungible and a debate over the right name for our society is much less useful than pointing out the characteristics of our society. However I do note that the word patriarchy is not androcracy or andrarchy.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/11/24 05:42 PM
1

As for heteronormativity, rather than gay men you should consider bi/pansexual men, who will choose to lead a heterosexual life because it's just the easiest thing to do. Yes, that increases competition for women. Regarding patriarchy, the archetype is archaic ancient Rome: the pater familias, not men, was the absolute legal authority of the household, including the power of life and death over his children -- but not over his wife. In modern western societies, it can be argued that positions of…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/11/24 05:03 PM
8

I've never heard a gay rights activist say, "heteronormativity hurts heterosexuals, too" because that statement makes zero sense Actually, it makes a lot of sense: the more gay men there are, the less intense the competition for women is. As for the rest, it's all a big misunderstanding. Patriarchy favours some men, who we may decide to call patriarchs. The rest of us can be advantaged or disadvantaged (the disadvantage coming from what patriarchy demands of men, in terms of stoicism, sexual con…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates10/11/24 03:48 PM
20

To me the question isn't really whether we live in a patriarchy, but what is the meaning of patriarchy. The word implies a generalized privilege of men over women only in the common feminist talk. But "patriarchy" doesn't mean that: it's not andrarchy or androcracy. Patri- refers to the fathers or the ancestors, not to all men, and at most to the circumstance that the positions of power are mostly occupied by men that, by virtue of their position, can be considered our "fathers". It does not mea…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates04/11/24 04:11 AM
4

Whenever a person, especially a politician, uses the pronoun "we" in a negative way, I can assure you he doesn't view himself as part of the group.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/11/24 09:34 PM
8

I tend to think that female on male rape is often associated with factors, like psychological coercion, that make the difference in physical strength meaningless.
/r/EverydayMisandry27/10/24 10:11 PM
1

Sounds like you're suggesting a race to see who proposes first. Not very healthy, IMO. I'd rather advocate a model in which couples decide together when to get married. But it's well known I'm an unrealistic person.
/r/EverydayMisandry27/10/24 09:05 PM
0

Let me play the devil's advocate: in a world in which reversed marriage proposal is commonplace, he will be less able to affirm his own masculinity. So telling him he has a right to affirm his masculinity however he wants, while at the same time advocating a world in which he can't do that, is rather hypocritical. The problem here is that society is redefining gender roles; and while I am in favour of that, we must understand that we are upsetting balances that were fine-tuned in a process that …
/r/EverydayMisandry27/10/24 04:05 PM
1

Sure, all people are different.
/r/EverydayMisandry27/10/24 03:00 PM
1

He's not, feeling emasculated is real and must be respected. However I don't think he has thought thoroughly of the implications of his desire to affirm his masculinity through traditional gender roles.
/r/EverydayMisandry27/10/24 02:32 PM
2

Oh I know very well what you're saying. Last month I wrote something about the reasons why men offer to pay for a date night -- and no, it's not because we expect sex in return, though that's generally a goal. The point is that taking charge of that responsibility makes us feel bigger. It feeds our ego. Therefore we might even feel offended if the woman we asked out wanted to pay the bill in our place. The same can be said for marriage proposals: some men will feel emasculated if the responsibil…
/r/EverydayMisandry27/10/24 02:30 PM
18

For short, men don't have a right to dislike anything women do to them. EDIT: the shocking thing is that Patterson's opinion does _not_ diminish the typical female view on objectification, and could be understood to strengthen it. But since a certain kind of feminism is just about power play, they have to downplay the wrongness of male objectification.
/r/EverydayMisandry24/10/24 07:55 PM
8

I like the term "Church of feminism", because when you look at it, it replicates some of the basic tenets of Calvinism, and I believe it's not a coincidence, considering that this flavour of feminism is rooted in the US. There is an original sin (having been born with a penis). There is a naturally sinful condition, an innate malice of men, and men cannot free themselves from it with their forces alone. There's God too: that God is Woman, a sort of plural deity who is the origin and measure of a…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates14/10/24 10:46 AM
9

All of them. Same as for any human being.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/10/24 08:55 AM
7

Well, your experience does resonate with mine. And I think marriage counselling could have equally gone wrong for me. But it helped me understand some things about myself. Many of us don't like talking about problems: it's a defense mechanism, but it also works against us because it makes us feel alone. Talking about things can be liberating, but only if you find the right person. And you can't know the right person in advance.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/10/24 10:47 AM
49

YMMV. My ex's therapist was enabling all her abusive behaviours and reinforcing all her negative beliefs about me. It ended up with my ex weaponizing her therapy against me: "my therapist told me you show the signs of being a narcissist", "my therapist told me you'd react like that", etc. Then I replied she should tell her therapist she (the therapist) had no right to say anything about a man she had never met. Not that it made any difference, but that was absolutely unprofessional. On the contr…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/10/24 09:44 AM
2

Fantastic.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/10/24 04:43 PM
25

The watered down meaning is used on purpose to degrade behaviours that wouldn't otherwise be subject to criticism (e.g. polite but unwanted sexual approach).
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/10/24 03:20 PM
5

What I think we are missing here is that we are working under the assumption that a certain person likes to be objectified. This forces us to use a definition of objectification that doesn't imply exploitation, control, etc. (unless in BDSM scenarios, but let's stick to the simple case). So what kind of objectification are we talking about? I believe we are in the realm of objectification as viewing a person primarily for their sexual value -- then maybe objectification is a misnomer, but it is …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/10/24 03:16 PM
28

That does contribute to the controversy. The word is vague enough that it is routinely applied to a variety of situations of different intensity (sometimes very mild), and it ultimately boils down to the person receiving sexual attention whether they appreciate it or not. Again, it's subjective.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates02/10/24 02:28 PM
1

Incel behaviour is troubling but calling every disgruntled man who can't get laid an incel is equally bad.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/09/24 09:57 PM
1

Meh I am pan and I do have much more restrictive standards for men. It happens.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/09/24 08:37 PM
59

I don't really see the problem here (it's not like anybody, man or woman, should be forced to date someone they don't like). EXCEPT for the fact that if a man ever complains about women finding him unattractive, you typically get a mob telling him he must be a bad person because it must not be implied that women, in their dating choices, can and will be as shallow as men.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates23/09/24 05:32 PM
1

I mean, it doesn't matter how you call it: it certainly is disrespectful. Similar expectations exist in the gay community of course.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates22/09/24 01:34 PM
6

To a limited extent, fetishes are a fact of life. It's all too easy to have a fetish based on how the human psyche works. Of course things get creepy when a fetish prevents you from seeing a person for what they are. What you're saying however worries me in another way: it seems that you think society _expects_ certain fetishes to be generalized and not individual? That's worrying.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/09/24 07:46 PM
1

I'm very surprised some women would think that robots could be a threat to their position. Isn't it obvious that a sex toy, however advanced, can never replace a person?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/09/24 07:38 PM
6

I agree with what you're saying but I also think that the comment you replied to was supposed to be read as "women _who say these things_ only have sex to offer".
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/09/24 07:35 PM
3

I think I made it clear that I can't state that on solid scientific grounds. It's a hunch, based on the fact that younger children enjoy physical bonding with parents, siblings and friends regardless of gender, and that physical contact with the same gender is usually blocked at a later age. In the light of Freudian psychoanalysis, which I believe in, these forms of physical socialization are sexual in nature.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/09/24 12:07 PM
1

Excuse me?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates12/09/24 11:54 AM
1

Absolutely. Sexual identity describes how we view ourselves and how we present ourselves to others, not who we have sex with.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/09/24 04:43 PM
2

Is this like "everybody's gay in jail"? Lol. I don't know, I think it takes more than personal experience to make such generalized statements. Even though I believe we all start off as pansexuals as infants, it's a gigantic leap to say that that side of ourselves is accessible in adult life. And even if you could wake it up a little, that doesn't mean you'd enjoy it much.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/09/24 04:37 PM
3

That sounds too much of a rationalization to motivate attraction or lack thereof.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/09/24 04:21 PM
3

Tbf I don't believe in labels. If you ask me, I'm attracted to whomever I find hot enough, which I assume is the case for everybody else as well. I wouldn't be surprised that someone may like women and fem guys, but that's not the same thing as liking women and men. I'm tempted to say that there are 8 billion different sexualities, one for each person in the world.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/09/24 03:59 PM
1

Meh. Latent, unexpressed homosexuality in straight men appears to be quite widespread once you have an eye for it. If I were to speak just based on my personal opinion, I'd say we're all born pansexual, but I can't provide proof so let's just say society surely rewards bi men who come out very little.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/09/24 03:53 PM
8

Hmmm hate should be a decision, but a phobia can be involuntary, so "biphobia" is the right term here.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/09/24 03:42 PM
3

Gay mockery not based on femininity but just on the lack of a certain "masculine boldness" was the story of my younger years.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/09/24 07:38 AM
5

Yeah but my point is that this provides some solid grounds to the theory that bisexuality or pansexuality is underestimated due to social reasons, including bi/pan men deciding to be straight because they can and because it's much less trouble than being queer.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/09/24 07:21 AM
0

Isn't there a recent statistics showing that bisexuality in the younger generation has tripped compared to current 40-year olds?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates11/09/24 07:07 AM
6

As a people pleaser, I have to agree, because I know how much I've hurt myself by trying to match other people's standards.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates07/09/24 05:52 PM
7

Because one of the things people, and in this case women, hate the most is to be described by an objective eye. You tell a fictional story about yourself for your whole life: you're not gonna be happy when someone reveals it's all a lie
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/09/24 07:33 AM
-3

Are they also calling for the release of the hostages?
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/24 02:27 PM
1

It's about oppression because otherwise you should see the murders on both sides.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/24 02:03 PM
19

If only we all agreed on what constitutes "harassment". Objective characteristics, not whatever is unwanted by the person who claims to have been harassed.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates03/09/24 12:58 PM
-1

Please don't use the word genocide. The Allies killed millions of civilians in Nazi Germany and nobody ever called it genocide. Hamas is a horrible regime that starves Palestinians to build military infrastructure whose only purpose is terrorism.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates29/08/24 11:38 AM
4

I hear that personality is determined by the experiences in the first 3 years of your life. The first time I heard someone comment about something being wrong in my demeanour I think I was in kindergarten. To think that certain aspects of yourself can be corrected is ridiculous. You can learn to control them, I suppose: which in my case would take placing cameras to record my movements and interactions with other people, studying them to see what is unusual and off-putting, and taking acting les…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/08/24 06:29 PM
3

We are talking about the additional challenges that people in the neurodivergent spectrum face. Not a fan of those who try to guilt-trip the less fortunate, as if a person who's losing in life deserved additional humiliation.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/08/24 06:08 PM
7

It's not optimism to say that those who don't win in life are at fault, as you do. In fact, it's a very shitty axiom. And it makes you look like you're unable to accept that there are winners and losers, not me. You'll better not use this line of reasoning with your child, because it's the kind of parenting that creates one champion for every 99 depressed losers.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/08/24 02:45 AM
4

Do you think you help people with mediocre social skills by saying that everybody has control over getting laid? That everybody can have top of the class pick up abilities? You may as well say that everybody can win the Olympics on any sport of their choice. Yeah no. Personal quirks, caused by neurodivergence, childhood trauma, and whatnot, can and will hamper your success in sexual relationships. Stop guIlt-tripping the less fortunate: be honest with them and then they'll see it's not all doom …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/08/24 02:35 AM
5

Average people can have special characteristics. If everybody has rizz, rizz is unspecial and women will choose based on other aspects.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/08/24 02:18 AM
9

So that's your take? Everybody has rizz, but some don't know how to use it, and it's their fault? I assume you believe you have rizz, otherwise your view would be masochistic; well, you had better be wrong, for your own sake, otherwise your rizz wouldn't be anything but an average characteristic, and no one is interested in average. (But no, seriously: having rizz is a binary condition, like being pregnant -- you can't be half pregnant, and you can't have a rizz that you don't use: if you don't …
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/08/24 02:12 AM
10

What? If all men had or could attain "rizz" just by virtue of being men, "rizz" wouldn't even be a thing. It would be called "normality". Ah the hypocrisy of setting a standard that's beyond the abilities of many, then humiliating them for being unable to succeed.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/08/24 01:53 AM
4

This kind of generalizations are useless. There is no such thing as the "typical woman" or the "typical man". let alone the "typical man who blames women". Talking about men who blame women without considering the kind of experiences that they've had is rubbish. Self pity does exist, but saying that every man who has complaints to make against the sweet little angels is indulging in self pity is ludicrous.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates19/08/24 12:16 AM
1

Oh well. Some 20 years ago I had to be seen by an andrologist and the doctor proceeded to perform a prostate exam without telling me beforehand. After a moment of surprise I knew what was happening and I can't say that I felt violated, but man, such unprofessional behavior!
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates13/01/24 12:16 AM
2

I won't say whether we, the men, are as a whole biased against women, but I believe I've seen many instances of women who despised other women who didn't conform to their expectations.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates01/01/24 10:22 AM
1

Why would they? Precisely because they are physically inferior, many women feel authorized to give it everything they got. Women are not told, from a young age, that whatever the fight, they should never use violence against a man. A woman who hits a man is not frowned upon the same as a man who hits a woman. To be clear, I'm not condoning men who hit women. I abhor that. But we should address the elephant in the room: men are more likely to restrain themselves even when physically hit by a woma…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates26/09/23 10:42 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter