I don't want to spend too much time on this, but some people have been asking me to post more about my successes. I've been posting on my Facebook about how men face major inequalities. I took a lot of heat for it at first, and I probably got 20 of my personal close friends and family to speak out against what I was saying at first.

I had a conversation with those people, continued to post, and I've noticed the objections were completely non-existent for a bit. As I continued to post, people started saying thing like "A lot of what you are saying is right, but I don't agree fatherless homes is a good statistic..." and stuff like that.

Basically, what really seemed to hit home is any issue that dealt with male disposability. People have a tough time explaining away suicide, homelessness, etc. Most people seem to give a weak attempt, but it seems to be a half-hearted retort while they are in their moment of denial. (Most people know most of these statistics, but when you mention suicide, homelessness, life expectancy, etc. as general concepts at once, it's hard to say that those issues should all be written off as natural or the fault of men.)

I then received a private message from a friend that wanted the control of a private conversation. He mentioned that I was starting to sound like a "conspiracy theorist", and that if I wanted to talk with him on it he'd be willing. So, of course, I took him up on that, especially because I knew he'd take me at least somewhat seriously.

As a scientist, he sees things through a biological lens, and so I didn't expect my societal arguments to get through as well. I said things such as even if it's natural for men to commit suicide more often due to violent behavior or for men to be homeless more often due to risk-taking, that doesn't mean we should be accepting of these things. There's no reason women should be sheltered at a higher rate if men are more likely to be homeless.

This arguments, that are mainly based in the male disposability concept, hit a chord with almost everyone. I know a lot of people here are well aware of and think about male disposability, but it seems the general public either isn't aware of it or doesn't think about it.

I think this concept strikes such a chord with people because it's good with such a wide-ranging group of people. Women don't want to think of boys as disposable, scientists often already understand that male disposability exists among many species and connecting that to how we shouldn't accept it just because it's natural biology seems to wake them up, men can relate to the concept and identify it as true in their lives, etc.

So for those of you wondering about success stories and what strategies can be used, all I can say is really hammer male disposability. Oh, and I offered that my stance crumbles if anybody can take down the male disposability concept, but I argue that feminism in it's current form crumbles without the male patriarchy concept. Most people seem more willing to think that male patriarchy doesn't exist than male disposability doesn't exist after a few pieces of evidence are offered. Some of these people I've been talking to have come completely to my side while nearly everybody else has come to what you can tell is a limbo stage where they are leaning away from current feminism being good, towards the MRM being necessary, and towards a belief in male disposability. It will just take them some time to fully accept it. Good day.