I've been a bit of a lurker in this sub, trying to assess whether it was right for me or not. I was put off from MensLib because of its almost servile deference to dogmatic radical feminism and adherence to identity politics, while MensRights seems to be mostly about getting worked up over double standards; it doesn't help that it leans right wing and conservative. Blaming women is no more constructive than blaming men, but stating that there's no fault amongst women is not helpful either - no more than saying men never do anything wrong. I almost always witness discussions devolve into a petty 'us vs. them' flame war: instead of 'horrible people vs. their victims', it's 'men vs. women'. I'm happy to say that this sub does seem to successfully keep away from this mindset, from what I've seen.

I'm that glad I found this sub, and it's a shame that it isn't more well-known. I'd almost given up on caring about men's issues for my mental health. The people I would most likely align with had no time for it and dismiss almost any discussion as 'incel' or 'misogynist', so I figured people just didn't really care and the only ones who seemed to were kind of reactionary conservatives (a la MensRights). At best, the 'progressive' people I know are indifferent, but too often they are actively hostile to any consideration of men's issues.

I'm sure everyone here is aware of the recent murder of Sarah Everard in the UK. I'm sure that everyone is also aware that it's an exceedingly rare situation, as tragic and outrageous as it is, but it has been blown massively out of proportion by people with agendas. Not to detract from how awful this case is, but it's noteworthy because of how rare it is. This appears to be a case of missing middle-class white woman syndrome, to be honest. People seem to be more incensed about this than when thousands of poor children were trafficked, and I'm fairly certain that was more of a classist thing than apologism for radical Islamists. It's also a bit of a well-known 'secret' that some people in Westminster are involved in paedophile rings, the extent of which is unknown, and that it has likely been deliberately covered up by the government. You don't just 'lose' such important documents, and you'd think they'd have backup copies. You can also see evidence of this in how Prince Andrew has been protected against his association with Epstein.

The discussion around it has, once again, devolved into the reductive 'NotAllMen'/'YesAllWomen' flame war that also flared up when Elliot Rogers uploaded an insane video manifesto and murdered some people. I remember, back then, people saying things like 'he wasn't mentally ill, this is just how men are!'. An absurd take, I'm sure you'll agree, but it's a sentiment I've seen quite frequently since then (including in recent discussions around Everard's case). 'Violent actions are never because of mental illness, and to suggest it is to demonise the mentally ill; however, violence is maleness, and it is appropriate to make that association and even broadly hate men for it.' To be clear, I think that it is reductive to suggest mental illness is solely responsible for violent acts, but the reality is that it's often an exacerbating factor. Just as not all endangered animals are cute and cuddly (i.e. marketable) mammals, not all mental illnesses are mostly benign to people around the sufferers (e.g. depression and anxiety).

What's interesting about mental health advocacy is how it often takes a backseat when it's regarding the mental health of men. 'Men worry that women will laugh at them, women worry that men will kill them' is an unbelievably reductive and hypocritical take. Similar to how women more frequently experience sexual harassment, so they're more aware of being at risk than men are (despite the higher risk of random violence against men), men are much more often derided and belittled than women are killed. It is inconsistent to say that mental health matters, and that men should be in touch with their emotions, but also to dismiss their feelings as trivial, especially if they're not the 'correct' feelings (e.g. 'drinking male tears'). This also relates to the 'NotAllMen' stuff above, since it can make men feel miserable, blamed, and worthless through no fault of their own. An isolated incident may not have much of an effect, but over time all the 'little things' have an insidious effect. This is already widely understood in the context of women's mental health: body dysmorphia and eating disorders are understood to be because of snide comments and unrealistic body standards in media.

Lately, like many here I'm sure, I've been feeling down because it's like I'm being compared to rapists and murderers, through no fault of my own. It doesn't feel fair, and while I understand why women might be wary, it doesn't make it any easier to stop feeling crappy. It is still prejudice, whether it's 'appropriate' or not, so of course it will instil the feelings of being unfairly discriminated against. Now, in terms of what we can do about it, I have seen people say I need to do X, Y, and Z to help women feel comfortable. So, because any given woman might be afraid of me for passively existing in proximity to her, I need to go out of my way to show that I'm not a threat. Meanwhile, people explicitly saying hurtful and dehumanising things about men are 'justified'? Their deliberate actions are justified, despite the harm that they can cause? It doesn't endear me to their cause, and it doesn't encourage me to do what they want. Why should I care that you're afraid of my existence, when you don't care that I'm hurt by your intentional words and actions? Again, just to be clear, I don't blame women generally; this is a response to the rhetoric I've been seeing lately.

Another sentiment I've seen recently is that 'men only ever bring up men's issues in discussions about women's issues'. I recently realised that, really, what they're saying is that they (the person stating this 'factoid') are not interested in men's issues. They focus exclusively on women's issues, so of course the only time they see anyone bring up men's issues - it's simply sample bias. It is an admission that they haven't read into the issues themselves; an admission that they are, at best, indifferent to men's issues and uninformed on the subject.

TL;DR: I've been needing to write my thoughts down somewhere, and I thought this was as good a place as any. Sorry it's a bit of a rambling mess. I'm open to any discussion and, please, feel free to add anything you think I've missed and point out any mistakes.