TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Angryasfk Archive

View 0 posts and 14,506 comments by Angryasfk on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Showing the 1,000 most recent of 14,506 comments.
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

Wow “failing to be enough of a feminist ally” is “toxic masculinity”! What kind of totalitarian ideology must feminism be then!!!!! Not that anyone here would be surprised.
/r/MensRights07/07/26 10:20 AM
3

Well there’s an obvious example with Mary P Koss. She deliberately broadened the definition of “rape” and “sexual assault” to produce her “1 in 4” statistic for college women. But when questioned about men experiencing the same things she was declaring to be “rape”, well she insisted that that was “different” - “not the same” etc.
/r/MensRights07/07/26 05:57 AM
13

It’s not the only thing. A real world example. A friend of mine, female, had a kid with an engineer. His industry went into a downturn. And he ended up on unemployment. The financial stress destroyed the relationship and she went “home to mother”. The Government paid her more (and SUBSTANTIALLY more) to take care of herself and the infant than he got to take care of all 3 of them! His payments with “rent assistance” didn’t even cover the rent. And they expressly said he wasn’t eligible for the f…
/r/MensRights24/06/26 10:08 AM
12

So if a man consents to sex, he consents to parenthood. But if a woman consents to sex, she does NOT consent to parenthood. Right? Feminists are not consistent on this point as they like to claim they are. Incidentally I’m not American, and abortion down to 24 weeks is legal on demand here. And probably the majority of the US population also live in jurisdictions where abortion is legal.
/r/MensRights31/05/26 01:56 PM
5

Do we? If a woman chooses to keep a child, the father is compelled to pay child support regardless of whether he “consented to parenthood” or not.
/r/MensRights31/05/26 12:35 PM
1

Oh so now it’s “proof” the hotline said that. It’s certainly consistent with the Government directions.
/r/MensRights04/05/26 04:51 PM
2

The article linked to has the link. If it doesn’t work for you, you can see it here: https://www.vic.gov.au/maram-practice-guides-and-resources?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
/r/MensRights02/05/26 03:12 PM
1

There wasn’t a quota before 1994. There was a mass influx of women into key positions and into Parliament in a handful of years in the 1990’s. And they then make sure that more women who “align” with them get selected for these positions. The result is that a feminist lobby is now a massive interest in the Labor Party. And one that no would be leader can risk offending or not placating. Plus the Victorian Premier is a feminist woman anyway. In any case, the directive has been shown in the articl…
/r/MensRights02/05/26 03:05 PM
1

The directive comes from feminist lobbyists. So feminism has everything to do with it don’t you think?
/r/MensRights02/05/26 02:35 PM
2

How about the official directive the police and other agencies have been given. Is that proof enough for you?
/r/MensRights02/05/26 02:33 PM
1

It stems from the State (Labor) Government’s directive to all of their instrumentalities. They’ve incorporated feminist activist demands into their guidelines. Labor has a quota that 40% of candidates for winnable seats have to be women - and 40% of Party officials at all levels have to be as well. So there was a mass influx of university women into the Party from the mid-90’s. Overwhelmingly feminists. This has supercharged feminisms already powerful lobbying ability. Anyone who leads the Labor…
/r/MensRights02/05/26 02:32 PM
4

And yet they insisted on switching the “G” and the “L”. The “G” being first is “centering men”. But putting “L” first isn’t “centering women” of course! And the idea that hospitals and hospices were chock full of lesbians trying to care for dying gay men? Firstly whilst HIV is even now far more common amongst gay men, most didn’t have the disease. And I very much doubt the majority of lesbians were carers. Indeed were they even a majority of the carers??? My suspicion is that it was part of the …
/r/MensRights17/04/26 11:08 AM
3

Caregivers and advocates? More so than anyone else? And who were those who actually suffered the most from AIDS?
/r/MensRights17/04/26 10:43 AM
5

It may not make sense to you. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
/r/MensRights17/04/26 10:39 AM
2

And, of course, the woman who makes visitation “different” has no part to play in this at all! Nor do the feminist friendly authorities who let her get away with it! I guess they’ll have just ESP it in then!
/r/MensRights06/04/26 09:48 AM
1

Ah yes - #Metoo. The movement one of whose earliest leaders/champions/victims targeted an underaged guy for the exact abuse they claimed to oppose! And of course “Epstein” is being “exploited”. It’s what political manipulators do. Sarah Everard’s brutal rape and murder by a crooked, POS cop was exploited by feminists keen to claim all men are responsible for it. The same happened in an earlier murder in Melbourne. And the mass stabbing murder of an untreated and unsupervised schizophrenic, Cauch…
/r/MensRights06/04/26 09:36 AM
6

It truly reflects the feminist version of “equality” doesn’t it.
/r/MensRights01/04/26 01:34 AM
1

To a degree I’d agree. But they championed the return of Khomeini, and went around slicing off the lips of women who wore lipstick (supporters of the Shah and western “degeneracy” apparently). Once you get to that stage, I done think “not knowing” really flies.
/r/MensRights27/03/26 09:58 AM
1

I wish we didn’t have the “culture wars”. Unfortunately we do, and it means I often have to make common cause with many I don’t particularly support in other matters. And they do matter.
/r/MensRights27/03/26 09:51 AM
1

Very true. These women were so vocal at ousting the Shah and putting back on the veil. Incomes (and education) rose rapidly under the Shah. And his secret police were certainly no worse than those of the Mullahs. It’s amazing what so called “enlightened” young women will accept if some ass tells them it’s “progress”.
/r/MensRights27/03/26 09:47 AM
1

She was a feminist. Who but a feminist would make such an assertion (claiming women weren’t “legal persons” AFTER Canadian women had the vote and after the passage of the Married Women’s Property Act. If you see someone assert that women couldn’t have back accounts in the 1960’s (which seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the 1974 Equal Credit Act, endlessly repeated online) it’s a safe bet that person is a feminist is it not?
/r/MensRights27/03/26 02:59 AM
1

The issue is that contemporary “identity politics” is produced by feminism. It’s a way of pretending that black guys (and some others) somehow benefit from measures primarily designed to advantage women. This “whiteness studies” BS was invented by a feminist gender studies “academic” in the late ‘80’s and depends on acceptance of all the feminist BS to hold to it. White guys are certainly stigmatised, in part so feminists can pretend they’re “allies” of black guys (for example). And have certain…
/r/MensRights24/03/26 09:30 AM
5

There was so much focus on her being “under 18”. So she was a “minor” and this is swapped with “child”. And I wonder how many of those saying “child” also support dropping the voting age to 16!!!! I note that many of Amber Turd’s followers were accusing Depp of being a “pedo” because he dated Winona Ryder after making Edward Scissorhands - she was 17 and he was 26. Supposedly thy didn’t start dating until she was 18 - but “small facts” like that didn’t bother the Turd supporting feminists did th…
/r/MensRights23/03/26 05:56 AM
2

Quite. Virginia Giuffre, for example, was fully grown and above the legal age of consent when she claims she had sex with the ex-Prince in London and then New York. Yet it’s called “child molesting”. In her legal deposition. She (or rather her lawyer) claimed she couldn’t have given consent due to her “childhood trauma” and background with Epstein and such claims. Now think on it: if this is the standard, then any woman who approaches you at a bar or club even if she’s stone cold sober, could cl…
/r/MensRights23/03/26 01:23 AM
2

I’ve seen The Red Pill. And feminists turned on her once they realised she was making a neutral documentary rather than the hit piece they expected. Theroux’s show was just a hit piece though.
/r/MensRights21/03/26 03:21 AM
1

One of “those”? Theroux sold his show as an expose of “the manosphere”. And then deliberately went after those particular individuals and presented them as “representative”. Yes, he did say a brief caveat about much of the “manosphere” being “comedians” and these ones being the “extreme”. But it was blink and you’d miss it. Against the show title which absolutely conveys the idea that this is what “the manosphere” truly is. In fact the caveat makes it worse to this extent - it means he knows the…
/r/MensRights21/03/26 02:25 AM
1

No. He selected that particular group, including HS, and made out these guys represent “the manosphere™️”. Yes, he put in a 10 second disclaimer that these guys are “the extreme”, but most of his audience wouldn’t remember that “blink and you’ll miss it” remark. It’s just an out if he gets called on it. He notably didn’t show any of these “good manosphere players” to contrast with the “bad actors”. He’s just feeding the prejudices of his target audience. And this is what’s wrong with this hit pi…
/r/MensRights20/03/26 01:29 PM
2

The point is that these people are specifically chosen for that reason. Theroux’s subjects are not a random sampling, but have been selected precisely because they will give the responses he wants.
/r/MensRights20/03/26 01:20 PM
2

Theroux has an audience, and they’re pro-feminist. So he won’t ever do anything to make feminism look bad. But will pander to their prejudices with such offerings as this. It’s a business model pure and simple.
/r/MensRights20/03/26 01:00 PM
2

And we haven’t seen, and almost certainly never will see, a Theroux “documentary” following such anti-male feminists (yes, that’s a tautology) around like that. He knows his audience, and they’re mostly fully on board with feminism.
/r/MensRights20/03/26 12:57 PM
3

It’s a hit piece. It was always going to be one. Theroux has an audience and they’re either feminists or don’t want to upset the feminist orthodoxy. Instead they want to see evidence that the “manosphere” are these types so they can write them off and shame guys for watching it.
/r/MensRights20/03/26 12:55 PM
1

It’s what Theroux does. Find some controversial group he and his audience doesn’t like; follow the around and record them saying “bad stuff” on camera. Maybe thrown in some ok person who’s trapped by the “brainwashing” or whatever. Love the way he claimed he exposed Jimmy Saville. That was an ITV show that he wasn’t a part of. He certainly didn’t expose him when he did follow the creep around.
/r/MensRights20/03/26 12:52 PM
8

Exactly. She pointed out the obvious question that these people are NOT asking: why are young guys being attracted by such influencers? I think the truth is that feminists and their minions don’t want to know why or what’s wrong, but think they can shame boys and teens out of watching it. I think deep down they know the reason. And that it’s on them.
/r/MensRights20/03/26 12:41 PM
3

Excellent work by Lorraine Courtney. And is exactly what many here have been saying all along: these idiots should be asking WHY young guys are listening to these influencers. Theroux sort of touched on it: mentioning the lack of a father in the lives of many of the men he interviewed, as well as the comments of the fans. But typically he fell back on the “male entitlement” BS. Does Theroux really think this? Or does he just know what his audience wants to hear? He certainly never expanded on it…
/r/MensRights20/03/26 12:36 PM
1

I have now watched it. He made a brief disclaimer that the “manosphere” includes comedians etc, and that he was looking at the extremes. But it was brief and likely forgotten by the audience. It “kind of” touched on something by seeing that many of those figures he was looking at grew up without a father. But that wasn’t really explored. He did little to examine why these people are popular with young guys either. Just some vague comment about the economy and followed up with the feminist line o…
/r/MensRights20/03/26 07:11 AM
1

Such as? You get banned from feminist subs at the first opportunity. So forget about talking about stuff there. They don’t want to hear it. Certainly not if they don’t think they can somehow reframe it a “patriarchy hurts men too” line. I agree that real action is what’s required. Actual public advocacy; legal challenges; political campaigning is what will ultimately end this era of feminist ascendancy. But it does start by “consciousness raising”. I’d see the sub and other spaces like it as an …
/r/MensRights18/03/26 07:58 AM
11

And isn’t she singing about an ex - the type of “man” that she’s attracted to???
/r/MensRights18/03/26 06:57 AM
29

One sided “equality” is the point. And it exposes the nasty reality of feminism.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 05:07 AM
2

Patriarchy is a term invented by feminists when used to describe wider society. Not these “evil European scholars”. The term “patriarch” was used to describe the male heads of wider families - particularly in the Old Testament. This refers to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. These are supposed to be the “fathers” of the Israelites. The term you’re referring is a feminist derived one.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 04:10 AM
3

The OP is likely sitting in some gender studies class? Poorly supported assertions like this are common enough in such settings, falling back on postmodernism’s fudging if ask for real evidence. And if really pushed, they’ll just shift the goal posts.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 04:06 AM
2

You might want to understand the biases of the particular course you’re sitting in and whoever is running it before you start swallowing their BS whole. If you’re ready to write off “European men”, how about you examine the biases of those running your class and whatever material they’re pushing and see that they too are clearly pushing a bias. And then seek alternative sources and see if their assertions really stack up.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 04:02 AM
0

So more “mostly peaceful” protests then.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 03:20 AM
3

I think a bigger issue is that child support doesn’t automatically go to the child or their needs either. It goes to the mother and she can spend it however she wants.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 03:08 AM
2

I’ve noticed the ones who do that the most are those that don’t present very well. So it certainly looks like a form of trying to prove their identity.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 03:02 AM
3

Of course he does. He’s far more subtle about it than Mike Moore (who was too sloppy to even properly hide his selective editing of Charlton Heston). He seeks out people with what he feels are extreme views, goads them by various means to make statements he can hold up, and then edits accordingly. He specifically seeks out either subcultures and extremists, and then seeks out the specific members of these groups that are likely to give him the best response. And it’s fairly obvious he’s followin…
/r/MensRights18/03/26 02:30 AM
4

He specifically selects his subjects for that reason though. That’s the point.
/r/MensRights18/03/26 02:04 AM
3

I think the issue is that it’s a hatchet job. Theroux specifically chose a particular set of “influencers” because they would confirm the biases of his target audience - the “chattering classes”. A true analysis would ask why such people are becoming attractive to young guys, what so-called mainstream society offers them to counter such people’s perspectives and indeed if there are voices in the “manosphere” that are better. Theroux, like Moore, follows a basic formula. Essentially it’s the one …
/r/MensRights18/03/26 02:01 AM
3

You mean the ones Theroux and his staff chose and claim they equal “manosphere”?
/r/MensRights18/03/26 01:30 AM
1

I doubt they actually believe there is such a thing as “healthy masculinity”. For them it’s either “acting like a woman” (ie femininity) or staying in the background and letting women lead, and apologise for the space they occupy. That’s not really existing at all. For many keyboard feminists it’s “whatever I think I want at the time”, and it varies according to whether they’re sexually attracted to the guy or not.
/r/MensRights15/03/26 01:01 PM
66

If “patriarchy” causes “misandry” then I guess that “feminism causes misogyny”.
/r/MensRights13/03/26 02:28 AM
1

Ah but that thinking is “toxic masculinity” and a “patriarchal framework”. It must be, because that’s what feminists say, and anyone who says otherwise is a “misogynist” or a “pick me”! That’s feminist tactics in everything. Use misleading numbers, fuzzy definitions which are imposed in “gender lines” (it’s “violence” and sexual assault of it’s against women, but in many cases not if it’s against men), misrepresent them and shame anyone who actually looks at what they really mean. And then get t…
/r/MensRights13/03/26 01:12 AM
1

I wonder if she’s an “award winning actress”?????
/r/MensRights12/03/26 10:59 PM
0

That has a strong whiff of the Mark Pearson situation. I guess he was lucky he wasn’t put in trial for digital rape!
/r/MensRights12/03/26 10:58 PM
3

Feminist Troll?
/r/MensRights12/03/26 10:53 PM
1

Well Australia did once have a “workers Party”. And that has absolutely been overtaken by feminism and its related ideologies. I could bore everyone with a TLDR on it. The “irrevocable step” was the quota that Keating introduced in the mid-‘90’s. That led to some 40% of the Members of Parliament being university feminists - and they imposed it on all Party admin positions too, meaning they got filled with such people. But the Party had been heading that way for a long time.
/r/MensRights12/03/26 01:36 PM
1

Apparently the emails were sent by Epstein to himself. I wouldn’t put it past “Bill”. But even if it was a real email exchange, she’d hardly have seen it anyway.
/r/MensRights12/03/26 12:37 PM
2

Do you even know what an incel is?
/r/MensRights11/03/26 01:01 PM
6

He seems to a Malaysian Chinese. It’s not clear if he’s spent much time elsewhere much less the USA. So chances are he’s not spent much time around black Americans (or any other Americans for that matter). He might be a recent arrival to study in the US. But I suspect he’s still in Malaysia and is basing all of this on the subs he’s been on. These seem to be the first comments he’s made here. So I suspect he’s just repeating what others have told him, a he thinks he can go back there and brag ab…
/r/MensRights11/03/26 01:00 PM
5

That’s actually not that common. This is not an Incel sub. There were Incel subs, but Reddit shut them down years ago. So some of them have ended up here. But they’re only a subset. You don’t seem to have spent much time here. If you had, you may see there’s a lot of posts from men who have been put through the mill in divorces, or who are currently married or have gfs and whose issue with feminism and present society is not based on their intimate relationship. These people are hardly Incels - …
/r/MensRights11/03/26 12:36 PM
3

You’re Malaysian, right? Have you thought that maybe, just maybe, feminism in other parts of the world has had a much more serious effect the male of the species and our societies?
/r/MensRights11/03/26 12:27 PM
5

Feminists need to believe this, and for others to believe it too. It’s the excuse they need to ignore any and all of the issues raised here, and not call their ideology into question.
/r/MensRights11/03/26 12:20 PM
10

They want to restrict it to feminists. Or to those they can indoctrinate into feminism. That’s very clear.
/r/MensRights11/03/26 12:18 PM
26

I’ve seen interviews with Erin Prizzey. She pointed out that DV is now a multi-billion dollar institution. Loads of government money and private donations go to DV organisations. Feminists need to maintain their control over DV so they can control the cash and the lobbying power. This helps to support feminists other campaigns - by paying feminists to be full time activists, or pretending that if they’re more female Board members or CEO’s it will magically reduce DV. If they ever admit that wome…
/r/MensRights11/03/26 12:17 PM
-1

Such as? Some individuals do have a level of bitterness which can morph into anti-female comments. Or sound like it. And this is what feminists and their fellow travellers screenshot. Of course feminist sites aren’t held to the same standard. I think some of the generalisations need to stop. And more care should be made that the issues are feminism as an ideology rather than women in general. But I don’t think it would matter. Feminists, certainly leaders and the online variety NEED to believe t…
/r/MensRights11/03/26 12:10 PM
10

The left as it was understood - the party of working people - doesn’t really exist in many places that aren’t the USA. Instead feminism and its daughter ideologies have replaced the focus on working people.
/r/MensRights11/03/26 12:02 PM
12

Yes indeed. The “old left” was, or at least declared itself to be, about the rights of ordinary working men. The upper middle class poser element was always there though. Orwell wrote about them, calling them “sandal wearers”, and the likes of Engles certainly fits the description too. What happened was that feminism opened the door to the idea that their own crowd could be the “real victims”. And it meant they didn’t have to pretend to care about “uncouth workers” (ie “rednecks” and all the oth…
/r/MensRights11/03/26 12:00 PM
15

It’s also revealing of “the left”. It’s been entirely taken over by “identity politics” which is really derived from feminism.
/r/MensRights11/03/26 11:53 AM
5

Well in the case of the Dems, the fact they blew the Presidential election should have been a wake up call. In any event, you can’t deny reality forever and get away with it. More and more guys either come to places like this, or seek out the “manosphere”, and their attempts to shame them out of doing so with raving about Tate and hatchet jobs like Theroux’s and that work of FICTION called Adolescence isn’t stopping them. Eventually they’ll have to start wondering what went wrong. I’m not going …
/r/MensRights11/03/26 09:58 AM
7

The point, Soggy, is that comparatively few guys under thirty would have seen them or know who they are. Picard has some presence for ST fans. But it’s an old show now, and the “Picard” show only lasted 3 seasons.
/r/MensRights11/03/26 01:13 AM
7

Something that’s actually contemporary, that is actually accessible to young guys today might help, don’t you think?
/r/MensRights10/03/26 01:27 PM
5

And mostly from the ‘90’s or before. Irwin died in 2006, that’s 20 years ago. Williams in 2014, but his heyday was the ‘70’s to the ‘90’s. Picard was a fictional figure from Next Gen which ran from ‘87 to ‘94. Aragorn was created by Tolkien in the ‘40’s and ‘50’s, and the films were made in the early 2000’s, more than 20 years ago. Mr Rogers and Bob Ross basically ended in the ‘90’s (Rogers just clunked on to 2001). Don’t you see how telling it is that all of these figures are over 20 years old,…
/r/MensRights10/03/26 01:26 PM
6

Feminism is always going to preferentially attract women who have a big problem with men. They’ll also be the “most committed”, the most obsessive, and the ones who make it their life’s work. Would the same work in reverse? You betcha! However comparisons between feminism and the MRM are superficial. Contrary to how feminists see themselves as courageous David’s fighting the “Goliath” of “patriarchy”, the truth is that feminism has heavy institutional power these days. Virtually every University…
/r/MensRights10/03/26 09:40 AM
1

Following on from what I’ve said. Andrew Tate is a relatively recent figure. Jordan Peterson was already getting an audience before Tate’s vlogs became prominent. And Cassie Jaye’s film predates even that - her film was considered so “threatening” by feminists that they made violent threats to try to get venues to cancel screenings! So whilst I think “bad actors” should be called out, I don’t think they are really why the MRM has issues with being “taken seriously”. They’re simply the excuse use…
/r/MensRights10/03/26 09:17 AM
1

Who are these “bad actors”? Much of the time it’s deliberate misrepresentation by feminists - such as calling Warren Farrell a “rape apologist”. The “pick up artist” lot aren’t exactly MRA’s either, are they. They’re more akin to female dating coaches - although they focus more on seduction than seeking a relationship. So I guess it comes down to the bogeyman, Andrew Tate! I’ve never watched his podcasts. Have no particular desire to. But he’s clearly found an audience. And it’s amongst young gu…
/r/MensRights10/03/26 09:10 AM
1

I’ll say this for the UK, they seem more inclined to prosecute false accusers, if they have a pattern of behaviour. Certainly far more than Australia or even the USA. You know, the “chilling effect” and all that!
/r/MensRights10/03/26 07:25 AM
1

But but but there’s no such thing as false allegations; believe all women and all that. I mean feminists wouldn’t lie, would they????! (/s)
/r/MensRights10/03/26 07:24 AM
1

Were there STD’s? We’ve only got Epstein’s email to himself. And she only divorced him after Epstein died. He was already a billionaire when she met him at a conference. I don’t have a particular beef with her. But I’m tired of hearing how “brave” she is or how “principled”. She knew what he was.
/r/MensRights10/03/26 07:21 AM
1

Yes, it must have been terrible to be the gf and then wife of the founder of Microsoft and get put in charge of the group developing the golf game and Encarter. And then running the household and raising children with only a “limited number” of staff to do the work, the “constricted space” of Bill’s Seattle mansion and a meagre budget only in the tens of millions. I recall at the time of the divorce, one of our feminist lurkers, Plankton, was insisting that she was the one who “really made the m…
/r/MensRights10/03/26 07:15 AM
2

I love seen the various articles (written by feminists of course) going on about how “brave” she was (after the Epstein email about “Bill G” was made public). “Brave” to leave him etc. Yep. She “bravely” went out on her own with a meagre couple of billion dollars and her overpaid control of the Gates Foundation. That’s real hardship she’s facing there! She also admits that the whole Epstein connection wasn’t the only reason she divorced him: there “other issues”. She also divorced him after Epst…
/r/MensRights10/03/26 07:06 AM
10

He won’t. He’s actually a very conventional “progressivist”. And anything that looks like a criticism of feminism is an anathema to those people. So much of their ideology is based on feminism either directly or indirectly. And to criticise feminism would result in their ostracism from their social circles, and certainly their loss of career. It’s one thing for him to go after the various KKK splinter groups, or Fred Phelps and his extended family. Phelps managed to antagonise most of the US pop…
/r/MensRights10/03/26 06:21 AM
6

Right. So you cannot name a single one who promotes “healthy masculinity”? And I don’t just mean “the manosphere”.
/r/MensRights10/03/26 05:54 AM
56

And that’s the elephant in the room. Not once have they seriously thought of WHY boys and teens are looking towards the “manosphere”. Not once do they seriously look at it.
/r/MensRights10/03/26 03:27 AM
1

Or from childbirth! In Australia from 2014 to 2023 there were a total of 197 maternal deaths. In my State (roughly 10% of the country’s total population) there were 175 deaths in traffic accidents in ONE of those years, 2022. Birth is not risk free. But it isn’t the big killer of women it was in past times.
/r/MensRights09/03/26 03:42 AM
33

The worst of it is that the feminists who drone on about all this “toxic masculinity” that supposedly “keeps women out of STEM” seem to think it’s jocks and Chads that are filling all these STEM places. It’s certainly how they talk about them. The truth is quite different.
/r/MensRights06/03/26 01:48 PM
2

No. Every so often I check to see if there’s been any developments.
/r/MensRights06/03/26 12:30 PM
3

Feminism is essentially an upper middle class movement anyway. It socialism for the rich and well off. In their world, it’s “social progress” to preferentially hire and promote the daughter of the merchant banker over the son of the street sweeper because in their world he’s the one with “privilege”! And you only have to look at their obsession with the sorts of careers people from that economic class see as suitable.
/r/MensRights05/03/26 02:45 PM
3

Men produced the Duluth Model? Men developed the “believe all women” line? Men benefit from DEI?
/r/MensRights05/03/26 02:41 PM
3

Actually marriage does make sense. Insisting that two parents are committed to form a stable relationship to raise children. But the feminist one sided version does not make sense. Nor does the “Mills and Boon” “oh it’s just about love” make sense either.
/r/MensRights04/03/26 10:07 AM
-1

Is it? It’s not the ancient world anymore.
/r/MensRights04/03/26 10:04 AM
1

I’m generally wary of all “activists”. At best they tend towards tunnel vision and interpretation of everything through a particular ideology lens. And that’s one reason why I don’t identify as an MRA, but instead as a sympathiser. So I do not doubt that once you’re eyes have been opened to these sorts of issues, many unfairly judge the actions of someone just because they’re a woman, or may be dismissive of a real issue that’s raised because the one doing it is a feminist and they’ve had enough…
/r/MensRights04/03/26 09:16 AM
2

How about “camp followers” being massacred after a battle? We all know this sort of thing happened. And I’m not in any way defending it. Also I doubt that in a major battle most of the armies were actual samurai either.
/r/MensRights04/03/26 08:58 AM
3

Who’d have thunk it!!! Must be a biologist!!!
/r/MensRights04/03/26 08:55 AM
9

Feminism has always had a high proportion of women who haven’t outgrown 6 year old playground shouts. And they’ve pushed this line that there was this “magical age” where women were the leading sex and did everything since the ‘70’s. That’s the advantage of prehistory. As there’s no written evidence they can just make stuff up and no one can “prove” otherwise. It’s just that no documented society of actual people who lived that sort of lifestyle actually lived the way they claimed. Not even the …
/r/MensRights04/03/26 08:53 AM
7

Researching what?
/r/MensRights04/03/26 08:46 AM
2

Is that that feminist study that claimed women were more “physiologically suited” to hunting? One teeny tiny problem is that those hunter gatherer societies that survived into modern times always had the men hunt and the women gather. And women were taking care of infants and couldn’t go off chasing game. Ayla may have been able to brew a special “tea” that was an effective oral contraceptive for Jean Auel’s feminist fantasy, but in the real world, women had to wait until the later 20th century …
/r/MensRights04/03/26 08:45 AM
3

Is it worst than murder though?
/r/MensRights04/03/26 08:28 AM
7

I am? According to feminists there is no difference in sex with a long term girlfriend or even wife than someone you’ve hooked up with on Tinder or at the local bar or club. Put that with “any amount of alcohol” means that she (but not he) can’t consent, that means if you take your wife or gf to a “romantic meal” and she has a glass of wine, by this standard you’d be committing r*pe if you have sex with her that night. As I said, I mentioned this to a German feminist. She wasn’t willing to admit…
/r/MensRights04/03/26 08:06 AM
28

And it’s a clear example feminist definition creeping. Clearly someone who’s blackout drunk is incapable of consenting. But to then say that’s the same as “any alcohol at all” is a disgrace. And unfortunately too many feminists cling to it. A few years ago there was a feminist lurker here who claimed to be a German lawyer. She kept going on about “drunk women” being taken advantage of in relation to this issue. I pointed out that by the Koss logic, if a man had a romantic dinner with his wife fo…
/r/MensRights03/03/26 06:51 AM
2

Quite right. The “golden age of the working class” was the 1950’s and into the ‘60’s. And she’s chiefly responsible for s#itting on it and making out that it was an evil and benighted era. And now we have the strange world where wealthy women are the priority and working guys are the “privileged enemy” if they’re the wrong colour.
/r/MensRights02/03/26 07:46 AM
9

Suicide in general isn’t discussed or widely reported in the media. It’s only if it’s someone who has become “news worthy” or where it’s a media “special” that they report it. Virginia Giuffre and Robin Williams are examples of this. The official reason is that they don’t want to encourage it. The idea being that if people knew how widespread it was, more would resort to it. So the actual toll is kept quiet. As for the gender discrepancy… It doesn’t fit the feminist “narrative”. If it’s ever rai…
/r/MensRights27/02/26 01:54 PM
18

A good chance of that. I wonder what it was that gave him the “idea” they “didn’t know each other that well”? His gf’s comments?
/r/MensRights27/02/26 09:23 AM
12

One. Yes, it’s fair enough to push back on those here who equate women in general with feminists. Two. Certainly some who regard themselves as feminists are not actually hostile to men. Many have fallen for the “dictionary definition” BS and think if you support equality under the law and equal opportunity in education and work, you’re a feminist. However these “equality feminists” don’t form specific groups unfortunately. And as for Christina Hoff Summers, she’s been ostracised. They actually h…
/r/MensRights27/02/26 09:21 AM
9

Hmm. Why do I think that in her mind she thinks “the revolution” will be about changing beauty standards and getting her “laid”. It’s enough of an issue for her to moan about it.
/r/MensRights27/02/26 06:27 AM
1

Are you really that messed up in the head? The standard feminist comeback is that women “attempt” more. How does that make them different to you? You don’t have to be some “red pill” guy. But just move away from feminist brainwashing. Things will seem a bit clearer and you may even feel better about yourself. Seeing higher suicide rates and being compelled to fight in wars as some sort of “privilege” is standard feminist twisted logic. It’s even worse than claiming the son of a laid off autowork…
/r/MensRights27/02/26 03:21 AM
1

You’ve suicided have you?
/r/MensRights27/02/26 03:05 AM
7

Really? From what I’ve seen, there’s a lot more biphobia amongst lesbians than gay men.
/r/MensRights27/02/26 01:21 AM
7

You’re a feminist aren’t you? Only a feminist could have such convoluted “logic”. The alternative is that it’s bait, which you insist it isn’t.
/r/MensRights26/02/26 02:56 PM
7

Yeah. I remember the ones a decade ago, claiming if you ever said (or heard) “you throw like a girl” you’re going to be a wife beater.
/r/MensRights26/02/26 04:52 AM
3

You tried to claim men die more because they have access to more lethal methods. Women have as much access. A woman who wants to end her life can get a firearm as easily as any man can if not more so. And can just as easily get any of the other materials commonly used. They are not denied access to more lethal methods because they’re women, and women do end themselves with those methods.
/r/MensRights26/02/26 02:11 AM
7

You miss the point. Women have as much access to firearms as men. And the disproportionate rate is pretty much the same regardless of the availability of firearms.
/r/MensRights25/02/26 02:26 AM
16

And? In the US there is nothing to stop a woman buying a gun if she wishes to take her own life. It’s a lame excuse.
/r/MensRights24/02/26 12:33 PM
24

That’s part of the Duluth Model “power wheel”. Putting her “on a budget” is “abuse” apparently. But if she spends all your money, it’s your fault for letting her. Never her fault of course.
/r/MensRights24/02/26 09:28 AM
25

Who fed you that one? Women have the same rights to buy guns that men do. Especially in the US. As for “poison”. Really it’s taking sedatives. Although one women I know attempted to OD on paracetamol!!!! Plenty of these attempts actually are a “cry for help”. The idea being that they get found and medical aid is called.
/r/MensRights24/02/26 09:21 AM
15

You can see how limited they were in causes that prior to the overturning of Roe v Wade they had to invent stuff like “mansplaining” and “manspreading” and all this vague “unsafe” stuff (which also debases very real concerns about actual safety from actual violent predators) as the justification. Also Roe v Wade only applies to the US (and many states have “positive abortion laws” which specifically legalise it), and yet feminists elsewhere where Roe v Wade never had any legal weight are acting …
/r/MensRights24/02/26 09:18 AM
46

It’s the standard feminist dismissal of the suicide rate. Nothing new at all. They’ve been at it for well over a decade now.
/r/MensRights24/02/26 09:11 AM
4

Or says she is. Even if they got a 15 year old to do an Op Ed, I wouldn’t put it past The Feminist Daily to have it ghost written.
/r/MensRights24/02/26 09:02 AM
112

They don’t want to “get it”. That’s the point. They made everything about so-called “diverse voices” (we know what they really means) and then “wonder” that the male voices are “right wing and toxic”. Which is code for “at odds with our ideology”. If these “bad voices” are what’s speaking to guys now, whose fault is that??
/r/MensRights22/02/26 01:33 PM
1

I’m not invoking the “excuse”. You did that.
/r/MensRights21/02/26 08:52 AM
1

You don’t seem to be an American. The US President has veto power. And I can understand them thinking the King can veto laws the way the President can. But that’s not the case. Queen Victoria couldn’t even keep Disraeli as Prime Minister and Gladstone out (she loathed Gladstone) when Disraeli lost the election. She certainly couldn’t veto laws. I don’t know why you’re pushing this one. There’s enough obvious examples of females who actually ruled to prove the point. And as for Fascism (none of t…
/r/MensRights20/02/26 01:31 AM
34

You only have to listen to Erin Prizzey talk about this issue. As she points out there’s a lot of money in this. By controlling it, feminists secure considerable institutional power and resources to push their other campaigns, as well as getting sinecures to keep themselves paid, and moral blackmail to force other changes essentially unrelated to DV onto society, all in the name of battered wives! I’ll give you an (Australian) example. The Bondi Junction killer. A man with diagnosed but unmedica…
/r/MensRights20/02/26 01:20 AM
0

It’s the common retreat from feminists when presented with the reality of female rulers to hide behind the “oh they were forced to do this to impress the evil men” garbage. As if women don’t have ambition, strategic calculation and all that. It’s why I don’t fall for it. Plenty of male rulers, especially ones whose legitimacy is challenged fell pushed to show how “strong” they are too. In fact military action to deflect from troubles at home are very common.
/r/MensRights20/02/26 12:57 AM
1

Now you’re being obtuse. No monarch since Queen Anne has exercised the veto. Constitutional theorists in her own time declared she’d have to give the royal assent to her own execution if passed by Parliament. The supremacy of Parliament was the outcome of the various civil wars of the 17th century.
/r/MensRights20/02/26 12:51 AM
1

Catherine the Great was the third ruling Tsarina Russia had in the 18th century. Pretty sure the precedent was set by her time. The issue with her was that she was the non-Russian wife of the Tsar. So she didn’t really have an hereditary right, and her “affairs” were another issue too.
/r/MensRights19/02/26 12:18 PM
1

What’s dumb about that is that fascism is essentially a pre-War political movement. Name ONE female political leader from the 1930’s?
/r/MensRights19/02/26 07:24 AM
1

Ivanka Trump hardly counts. However Catherine the Great absolutely does.
/r/MensRights19/02/26 07:16 AM
0

Again, she was a Constitutional Monarch. We don’t need to resort to figures that can be dismissed and risk invalidating the proposition. There’s enough obvious examples of people who actually ruled without resorting to her.
/r/MensRights19/02/26 07:14 AM
1

She was a Constitutional Monarch though.
/r/MensRights19/02/26 07:12 AM
1

Not convinced. Mary Queen of Scots didn’t. But that’s not why she was forced to flee. Her cousin Elizabeth I stayed out of war for ~ 20 years. She was well entrenched when she finally went to war. I doubt she had to show “toughness” after 2 decades. And Catherine the Great went to war for the same reasons male counterparts like Frederick the Great did.
/r/MensRights19/02/26 07:11 AM
1

Not really. Elizabeth I was certainly tough and had to appear so. But she tried to keep out of war until the mid 1580’s. Why? War was expensive, and to pay for it she’d have had to call a Parliament to raise taxes, and they wouldn’t have agreed to that without some sort of concessions which she didn’t want to give. So she passed for 20 years without having to have a war to show how strong she was. Incidentally her grandfather avoided war for similar reasons, and her successor ended her legacy wa…
/r/MensRights19/02/26 07:04 AM
2

TBH war was largely forced on all three: although “Golda” was certainly resistant to any “land for peace” deal before the Yom Kippur War. A better example is Catherine the Great. The truth is that the only reason female rulers aren’t seen as at least as ruthless as their male counterparts is because there’s fewer of them. And people are just less familiar.
/r/MensRights19/02/26 06:57 AM
11

Right… So if you oppose anti-male discrimination, you’re a misogynist? A very feminist attitude, and feminists always labeled this sub “misogynistic” as a result. It’s their term for anyone (male or female) who doesn’t enthusiastically support their whims.
/r/MensRights19/02/26 06:51 AM
5

Plenty of feminists who love lemons though.
/r/MensRights19/02/26 06:39 AM
3

Epstein went to prison. And the issue with Trump is that it looks to many like a political stitch up. And it’s not helped by the fact that his opponents have misrepresented him before. Remember the fable of the Little Boy who cried Wolf? And there’s the “#Metoo” backdrop. Where feminists announced they could care a less about any man being destroyed by false claims or anonymous postings that came in in the aftermath. And to get back to the Mark Pearson case. That “award winning actress” is still…
/r/MensRights18/02/26 03:48 AM
2

They’re slandering a dead man, who cannot defend himself, based only on the fact his name is in the Epstein files - that and him being male is sufficient “proof” apparently. And a couple of nurses/carers talk of some gropey or gross invalids, to support the tale. It’s not really about women sharing abuse stories than about citing these tales to justify the hit piece on Hawking and claim all men are evil.
/r/MensRights18/02/26 01:54 AM
3

That’s what they’re doing though. Look there’s a few things about Hawking the man I don’t like. And A Brief History of Time is an overrated book - I always got the impression many of those who bought it just to sit on the shelf to “look good” without actually bothering to read it. However that doesn’t make him a “pedo”.
/r/MensRights17/02/26 06:30 AM
6

I don’t believe in the “term”. I do support making reasonable provisions for access to buildings, services and facilities for those whose mobility is impaired. And certainly some form of oversight protection should be available for those who are intellectually impaired so they won’t be taken advantage of and can navigate modern life. However the way feminists and other SJW’s have weaponised it as some form of virtue signalling…
/r/MensRights17/02/26 06:19 AM
6

She is still called “the victim” by many feminists. I personally think accusations should be taken seriously. I have problems with the “believed” part. Why? Well that already is deciding the outcome. Why bother to have a trial or even gather evidence? It is guilt by accusation.
/r/MensRights17/02/26 06:14 AM
3

Those shots are specifically about Hawking though, and their only “evidence” is that his name is in the Epstein files. And when someone points out that he was mentioned because he went to a conference and that it only means his name was mentioned in an email, and it doesn’t mean he had any part in any sexual misconduct, they get shutdown and called a pedophile apologist. I notice you’ve made no comment about that at all.
/r/MensRights17/02/26 05:40 AM
3

Feminists talk about “ableism”. All part of their intersectional “oppression Olympics”.
/r/MensRights17/02/26 05:28 AM
1

They attacked the commenter that pointed out that Hawking had attended a conference. And that being mentioned in an email is quite different to being accused of wrongdoing. And this is in response to all those slanderous comments about Hawking being a “pedo” and “predator”. And the response? Heavily downvoted and called a pedo apologist for simply speaking the truth.
/r/MensRights17/02/26 05:26 AM
5

I think the issue here is there is a denial that anyone ever lies about such things. If someone is making it up, for malice or attention, they are not victims. They’re actually victimisers. I’ve seen too many feminists continue to refer to such people as victims. Mark Pearson’s accuser, for example, is NOT a victim. She is an abuser.
/r/MensRights17/02/26 05:23 AM
2

I would remind you that Epstein actually did go to prison. So did Maxwell. So did Weinstein.
/r/MensRights17/02/26 05:20 AM
2

You don’t think those commenting on that thread kicking Hawking were actually girls Epstein had “recruited” do you?
/r/MensRights17/02/26 05:16 AM
4

I see. Plenty of feminists, especially big name ones and activists certainly believe that.
/r/MensRights17/02/26 05:13 AM
3

You claimed there’s such a thing as “incel terminology”. Of course you never mentioned what sort of things you believe to be “incel terminology”.
/r/MensRights17/02/26 05:12 AM
5

Care to justify that claim? There’s a general hostility to feminism, especially the 3rd or 4th or whatever “wave” of feminism we’re supposed the in at the moment and the highly negative, and yes, discriminatory, impact it’s had. You don’t have to be an “Incel” to have issues with this. You don’t have to be a man either.
/r/MensRights17/02/26 03:43 AM
34

Can vouch for that. Had a feminist show up here, claiming women “weren’t legally persons” in Canada until 1929 (funny how these “non-persons” had been voting for more than 10 years by then) and unloaded on “Incels” in an alleged “honest question”. I pointed out this wasn’t an Incel sub, despite what she may have imagined. And pointed out that Incels mostly weren’t what she imagined either. That many were socially awkward or on the spectrum and have trouble reading social cues etc and get seen as…
/r/MensRights16/02/26 12:49 PM
52

Hawking wasn’t perfect. But he couldn’t even talk without a voice synthesiser. How could he have “molested” anyone? I wonder if Shakespeare is going to get mentioned as being in the “Epstein files” because he used the name in an email?
/r/MensRights16/02/26 12:40 PM
5

Its bizarre. They seem to forget that Virginia Giuffre was over the legal age of consent when she claimed she had sex with ex-Prince Andrew in both London and New York. And she was “vague” about the time of the alleged orgy on Epstein’s island. And she was in her 18th year, less than 6 months short of her 18th birthday. She was fully developed physically. It’s not pedophilia. And many of these people support Starmer reducing the voting age to 16. She did claim she was 16 when she had sex with a …
/r/MensRights16/02/26 12:37 PM
1

So when women make statements that women are “open” and “make clear signals” that they’re to be “approached”, that isn’t what they think at all? They’re lying?
/r/MensRights15/02/26 01:28 AM
7

I’m not an incel. Never defined myself as one. I haven’t had a lot of sexual partners - I’m not the local “stud” or Chad. Incel is a fairly broad term. But my understanding of it is that it’s essentially men who are ignored by women. Women in general, not just the proverbial “9 or 10”. Apparently statistical analysis shows that men in the autism spectrum are much more likely to be incels. As are certain immigrant ethnicities. Your earlier comments makes it seem like some lout in a bar going up t…
/r/MensRights14/02/26 11:13 AM
7

Soooo… the education statistics and trends aren’t true then; the erosion of due process isn’t true then; the weaponisation of accusations and restraining orders for divorce settlements isn’t true the; DEI discrimination isn’t true then; anonymous reporting and other “collateral damage” from #Metoo isn’t true then; none of the issues raised he is true??? And this is a Reddit sub. It’s not a political party. The first step in any activist campaign (and I’m generally wary of activists of all stripe…
/r/MensRights14/02/26 10:54 AM
4

She called her ex a pedo. Was he? Or is this just a term of abuse? But there’s nothing else in the post to indicate that’s she’s personally experienced anything. I think her relationship ended badly (and perhaps he was a real AH), she’s sought comfort in feminist male bashing sites and worked herself up to this. I hope she finds some balance. But that is a her thing.
/r/MensRights14/02/26 10:40 AM
12

Have you?
/r/MensRights14/02/26 10:32 AM
6

The woman in the post clearly hates men and either expects those reading her rant to agree with her, or be swayed to her opinion. And to claim the entire male population must automatically be “pedos” and “rapists” and “predators” and that she wants to live in a wholly female community (perhaps she could join a convent) because men are so evil and hateful is pretty much the definition of misandry isn’t it?
/r/MensRights14/02/26 10:29 AM
9

Re-read what she said. All men are “pedos”. All police are rapists - because they’re men (hint hint, all men are rapists) and on and on it goes. She’s having a full on meltdown. It sounds like her relationship with her ex broke down and she’s taken solas in some feminist male bashing social media site, and got worked up to this. I agree it’s her problem. However if there are enough women like this around, it becomes an “us problem” because they vote, join focus groups, and some even move into HR…
/r/MensRights14/02/26 10:25 AM
13

Don’t forget she’s working to change “feminists” supposedly. Perhaps she thinks they’re too “man friendly”.
/r/MensRights14/02/26 10:21 AM
12

What “feminist issues” are you changing?
/r/MensRights14/02/26 10:20 AM
16

Probably hoping to become an HR Director, or a Gender Studies advisor to Government.
/r/MensRights14/02/26 10:19 AM
13

Wow. A ton of projection there. The girl in that post clearly has a lot of issues. She insists that all men are rapists, pedophiles and any other slur she could think of. The man you’re responding to simply says that this is her issue, and he’s not going to get upset by it. And here you are turning into something else. And note: whilst she claims to have an “ex” and to label him a “pedo” (a term often debased these days as a general slur), she’s not indicated that she herself has been actually v…
/r/MensRights14/02/26 10:17 AM
7

I’m afraid you’ve misconstrued a few things. This isn’t an Incel sub. There are some Incels here - mostly “refugees” from actual Incel subs which Reddit banned years ago. Following from this, it’s obviously then inaccurate to just assume that anyone from this sub who responds to you must be an “Incel”. This sub is actually about men’s rights. Which have been eaten away by various pro-women laws (which may have had laudable intentions but have very real and bad consequences on the legal rights of…
/r/MensRights14/02/26 09:59 AM
6

After claiming that women “weren’t even people in Canada until 1929” and had been “oppressed” by men who “owned/controlled” them! That’s what she opened with. Plus the OP seems to be under the delusion this is an incel sub. It isn’t.
/r/MensRights14/02/26 09:45 AM
2

Where did you read that nonsense? The main claim is that a woman who’s had 50+ sexual partners will be a “poor wife”, not one who is 24 or younger. My mother was 23 when she got married btw.
/r/MensRights14/02/26 09:40 AM
3

Wow. Women “weren’t people” until 1929? I call Bull$hit on that one. Canadian women already had the vote before then, which would hardly be the case were they not “persons”.
/r/MensRights14/02/26 09:37 AM
-1

Really? Metoo started with one Harvey Weinstein and the “casting couch” - “sleep with me if you want good roles”. It didn’t stay there though, did it.
/r/MensRights14/02/26 09:24 AM
-2

When claiming that a name being “mentioned” in an Epstein email is enough to insinuate “wrong doing” then I’d suggest it really is heading towards a “moral panic”.
/r/MensRights14/02/26 09:21 AM
2

Absolutely. Epstein was a businessman, who tried to use his girls to gain “leverage” and “inside information” with wealthy individuals. I dare say the bulk of his emails had little or nothing to do with his provision of sex.
/r/MensRights14/02/26 09:19 AM
1

That guy is a bit of a grandstander from what I can see.
/r/MensRights14/02/26 09:16 AM
5

There’s far fewer “intersectional points” for Indian men in the mindset of contemporary American feminists. But it’s really part of the “creepy” or “cool” mentality that gets pushed. If the guy is considered “hot” then attitudes or behaviours labeled “creepy” in others will be acceptable. Or even desirable! It’s part of the “pretty privilege” that feminists occasionally moan about regarding the way women are treated. The problem is that few feminists have the moral consistency to acknowledge wom…
/r/MensRights12/02/26 09:26 AM
2

Remember it’s a “slur” to even suggest that man haters are disproportionately attracted to feminism. I got permabaned by ask feminists for mentioning this obvious reality.
/r/MensRights12/02/26 09:19 AM
27

The woman is a liar. And is so up herself she doesn’t realise that she’s revealed it in her own feminist whinge. She started by bemoaning that she is at work, and dreads going home to “be alone”. But at the end of screed when she boasts about her one “meaningful” relationship, some pen friend who now lives in Spain, she boasts how she’s “moved in” with her boyfriend. So she isn’t going home to a lonely apartment at all is she. And her moan is that she doesn’t have the sort of “relationships” she…
/r/MensRights12/02/26 09:15 AM
90

Typical “professional feminist”: it’s “all about me” combined with “projection”. She failed to grasp the point in the Pew research she tried to cite that women reach out into more widespread networks.
/r/MensRights12/02/26 07:43 AM
7

Oh I’ve had to sit through one of those videos for work. It’s American (of course) and focuses on US racial politics (not that this troubles the HR department of my AUSTRALIAN Company). The “privilege” is such things as “are your parents still together”. “Ever had to worry about paying bills” and that stuff. They also went on about going to private schools etc. The funny thing was that all of these “privileges” (only a handful actually qualify as “privileges”) applied as much to women as to men.…
/r/MensRights10/02/26 06:37 AM
1

Lean right? Well you could say that, but I’d suggest that it has more to do with the opposition to contemporary “left” parties, which are largely taken over by feminism. Opposition to say Jess Phillips and her enablers is not the same as actively her partisan political opponents. People here are of quite varying political views on other issues. So I think the issue is that leftist parties are hostile to men because of feminist influence rather than MRA’s and sympathisers being right wingers.
/r/MensRights09/02/26 07:15 AM
2

The left of politics has been captured by feminism and its daughter ideologies. Some has been insidious - through movements of feminism and postmodernism (feminism’s enabler) in Universities and university political groups. And some an open takeover, such as Keating introducing a “quota” for women in legislative seats for the Labor Party, meaning a sudden influx of overwhelmingly feminist women into the Partyroom, meaning no would be Labor Leader can afford not to support the feminist line.
/r/MensRights09/02/26 06:29 AM
3

Orwell wasn’t wrong was he, as the last couple of decades in particular have proven.
/r/MensRights09/02/26 06:23 AM
2

Do you really? There’s feminists who during the height of Metoo were dismissive of anyone who was destroyed by false of malicious accusation as a price “she was prepared to pay”, and it was clearly accepted by plenty of others who had enough sense to not openly admit it! Even if you personally do care, plenty of feminists don’t. And they always dismiss such concerns with assertions that “less than 2% of accusations are false”, even as they initiate “safety” policies which are very broad in what …
/r/MensRights09/02/26 04:40 AM
1

Good ‘ol Bill has gotten away with it for years. Even as President he had women claiming he had sex without consent (rape surely) and this was ignored. The same feminists pushing Metoo pushed Hillary Clinton in 2016 - ignoring her campaign of smear and intimidation to silence his accusers. But apparently the Clinton’s are exempt from all this.
/r/MensRights09/02/26 03:42 AM
2

And if anyone else gets ruined by it, they’re acceptable “collateral damage”, right? And it’s “time for men to ‘step back’ and ‘check their privilege’” and all that. Funny how “fairness and equity” are always a one way street in feminist land.
/r/MensRights09/02/26 03:20 AM
1

Bill Clinton? Oh that’s right, he gets a free pass doesn’t he! I mentioned Weinstein’s politics because this “ally” garbage doesn’t actually mean a thing. And I’ve a better example than him, although it would be obscure for an American. In Australia we had a “male feminist” by the name of Andrew O’Keefe. A TV presenter and nephew of Johnny O’Keefe who was the country’s first big rock singer (his name obviously helped him). He hosted game shows and the breakfast Television show Today - and infamo…
/r/MensRights09/02/26 02:24 AM
2

We have laws to do this. Epstein actually went to prison, and died there.
/r/MensRights09/02/26 01:53 AM
2

And this can very quickly become the excuse for many negative reactions. Which is surely the OP’s point. Take #Metoo. The detonator for that was Weinstein (a “nice left liberal”). I’m prepared to believe all those who claimed they “didn’t know” (including Meryl Streep) didn’t know the specific details. But the casting couch has been a Hollywood cliche for decades! Did it just hold Hollywood producers accountable for promoting women willing to have sex with them for parts? Of course it didn’t. It…
/r/MensRights09/02/26 01:52 AM
3

You mean Maxwell? Virginia went around recruiting girls too supposedly. It doesn’t mean that it cannot be weaponised by feminists for a #Metoo reboot. In Australia the Bondi Junction Massacre, where an untreated, unsupervised schizophrenic stabbed multiple (mostly female) strangers to death was within two days reframed as “male toxicity” and leading to a massive increase in Domestic Violence laws, funding for feminist groups and even Movember shifting money raised for men’s health into anti-DV a…
/r/MensRights09/02/26 01:41 AM
3

I would also remind you that the “excesses” of #Metoo (at least one of the leaders of which turned out to be an abuser herself) was supposedly motivated by the desire to “protect women from Weinstein” (who is at least still alive). That’s the point surely. An excuse for very anti-male legislation and policies.
/r/MensRights09/02/26 01:18 AM
2

He’s dead. So unless his spectral presence is after you, you should already.
/r/MensRights09/02/26 01:07 AM
2

Yep. Communist States NEVER have had conscription! Oh wait!!!
/r/MensRights09/02/26 12:43 AM
11

You clearly are defending her actions. You said it was sexual assault, as if he was some flasher jumping out I front of her on a public street.
/r/MensRights06/02/26 07:11 AM
4

She had a preliminary hearing in early December. It hasn’t gone to trial yet. Let’s see what the footage the police have actually shows.
/r/MensRights06/02/26 07:06 AM
1

WTF????
/r/MensRights02/02/26 01:25 AM
1

I’m not promoting circumcision. I’m saying that infant vasectomies are far worse.
/r/MensRights01/02/26 12:32 PM
4

It’s bizarre that they can’t see how women absolutely use “weaponised incompetence” all the time to get men to do things for them. I’ve frequently seen it in work situations. But a lot of feminist assertions about men smell like “projection”: accusing men of doing the sorts of things they do, or imagine doing!
/r/MensRights31/01/26 02:00 PM
1

No it isn’t. Infant vasectomies are sterilisation. You won’t be able to reverse it when they’re adults.
/r/MensRights31/01/26 01:56 PM
1

Frame what as a “benefit to women”?
/r/MensRights31/01/26 01:51 PM
2

It’s “the norm” women accept the “responsibility and risk” because a) they’re the ones who get pregnant, and hence have more to risk in a casual encounter - the same as if I were to cross a busy road as a pedestrian, you’re more cautious than those racing along in cars and trucks; and b) because the pill dominated since the ‘60’s. What you forget is that the pill was funded precisely so it would be women that would choose whether or not to take it. Initial funding was from feminists, and they re…
/r/MensRights31/01/26 01:40 PM
1

Many aspects of DEI, and other feminist strategies (micro aggressions, hostile workplace etc), firing for anonymous, and unsubstantiated complaints etc would have been declared as things that would “never happen” in previous decades. We live in strange times.
/r/MensRights31/01/26 01:28 PM
4

They act like it’s a new thing. It isn’t. Student bodies have been over 60% on average since ~2020. The obvious thing is that the programs to boost women in education have served the purpose and need to be wound down. And then, just perhaps, they need to look at what’s happened in schools and wider society. I think part of the problem is that they’ve expanded the university sector too much. So there’s many more graduates than there are “appropriate jobs” in many fields. And with DEI and “affirma…
/r/MensRights31/01/26 01:03 PM
5

Wow, Kimmel, well known male feminist and propagandist is being recast as an “expert in masculinity” and “male problems” all because of his brief tenure in that Centre for “Masculinity Studies” which had the likes of Gloria Steinem and Jane Fonda as part of the board. And people wonder why the “responses” to those issues are cooked.
/r/MensRights31/01/26 12:52 PM
11

I’ve known a few. But I take your point.
/r/MensRights31/01/26 12:30 PM
1

Man hating is not limited to rad fems. Feminism is ALWAYS going to disproportionately attract women with an animus towards men. And they will always be the most committed. The most “obsessive”. And will tend to be the leaders of the various feminist groups. However Radical Feminists are quite explicitly focused on “de-maleing” society. Its ideology is quite explicitly antimale. And that is part of the reason why many (but not all) Radical Fems are “TERFS”. Just because some of these TERFS see yo…
/r/MensRights31/01/26 11:59 AM
1

If you thought it was a bait post why didn’t you say so originally? I don’t doubt that a great many psychologists these days are feminists. And obviously some are going to be “rad fems”. It was unprofessional for her to declare she was a rad fem like that, but she could have been imagining she was proving that “it’s not feminism” by making such a call, not thinking that instead of making him think that feminism’s ok, rather that she’s not to be trusted. It’s still a reasonable discussion if it’s…
/r/MensRights31/01/26 07:50 AM
1

Hardly. You declared everyone here who didn’t agree with you would “abandon men’s rights” if an attractive enough woman shows interest. Not attractive feminist. Attractive woman. Those were your words. No “twisting” involved.
/r/MensRights30/01/26 06:06 AM
1

Does her ideology hate you for existing though?
/r/MensRights30/01/26 03:07 AM
1

When it slipped into my inbox I mistakenly thought it was part of the Rad feminist analyst thread. I’d just responded to someone who’d claimed I was “imagining” that radical feminists hate men, and that radical feminism “means different things to different people”.
/r/MensRights30/01/26 02:18 AM
1

Isn’t it? You just declared that everyone here would abandon men’s rights if a good looking woman showed them attention! That is saying they’re all Incels! You do realise that whilst many are guys burned in divorces, and yes there are “incels” here - in part because Reddit shut down the incel subs - there are also many guys who are married, or have girlfriends! Bemoaning dating life is only one of the gripes mentioned here. It’s much more about hiring and educational discrimination; the denial o…
/r/MensRights30/01/26 02:16 AM
2

Imagined? Ever heard of “political lesbianism”? Think I’m just imagining it do you?
/r/MensRights30/01/26 01:56 AM
1

There’s some members of SCOTUS that need to get this email! Nonetheless this is something that is being promoted in feminist circles. Should it be ignored?
/r/MensRights30/01/26 01:33 AM
1

What are you on about? You think men’s rights = incel? Is that it?
/r/MensRights30/01/26 01:19 AM
2

Care to respond to the evidence?
/r/MensRights30/01/26 01:12 AM
1

It may be anecdotal evidence, but it’s an example as to why troubled men are turned off of “counselling” and why it doesn’t work.
/r/MensRights30/01/26 01:11 AM
6

But but but women never, ever lie. And when they do it’s so so rare to be “insignificant”. And it’s a good “learning opportunity” for them men so accused (to learn what? Never trust a woman?). Isn’t that what feminists tell us all the time????!
/r/MensRights29/01/26 09:01 AM
2

Believe all women!
/r/MensRights29/01/26 08:56 AM
1

My take is this. If the military is a male thing (even if it is just combat), you can justify it being male only. But as soon as Obama opened all positions to women, it was wrong to restrict conscription to men. If feminists want the military to be fully open to women, it means that women should have equal responsibility to defend the nation. And should be subjected to the same obligations men have. The thing is that few feminists would actually support this if they really believed it would happ…
/r/MensRights29/01/26 08:52 AM
2

And perhaps you should wake up to where this “embrace” of feminist ideology leads?
/r/MensRights29/01/26 08:47 AM
2

Oh rubbish. There’s zero acceptance that their own actions have any bearing on any of this. That they have any responsibility at all for what happened.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 08:41 AM
2

They created this system. This mess. They set it up! Isn’t that the constant feminist refrain? Men set it up? Do any of these feminists you have the “privilege” of speaking to take any responsibility at all for any of this????
/r/MensRights29/01/26 08:38 AM
1

So, a PhD in “Women’s Studies” or “Gender Studies”. I’d be cautious about such a person given the slop they’ve been served, and the fact they chose to pursue such a course of Study. It’s going to disproportionately attract women with serious “issues” with men. However this therapist has described herself with a quite specific ideological position. She’s not merely a feminist, but a rad fem. Not every member of a Gender Studies Department would identify as a “radical feminist”
/r/MensRights29/01/26 08:10 AM
6

Er, how about the male suicide rate? The fact that feminists either dismiss it outright with the claim that “women attempt more” or blame men for “not reaching out for support”? Well when the “support” is feminist dominated and “unhelpful” (to say the least) it’s no wonder it doesn’t work.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 08:05 AM
3

You can’t? Rad Fems go around telling women to “embrace lesbianism even if it’s against their inclination” so they don’t “sleep with the enemy”. You can argue the degree to which feminists in general hate men, but radical feminists are quite open about it. In fact they’re defined by it.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 07:01 AM
2

Radical Feminism is a very specific ideology though. And it’s one essentially defined by its hostility to masculinity and men in general.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 06:57 AM
1

Quite. It’s the rad fem part, not the lesbian part that’s the issue. And the idea that lesbians hate men really stems mostly from the Rad Fems anyway.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 06:50 AM
2

That’s the point. You can’t continue in these circumstances.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 06:48 AM
1

It’s different though. Christians are supposed to be basically defined by the idea that God exists, that Jesus is Son of God, rose from the dead, and tells us the way to salvation. Hostility to “sin” and feeling non-believers are lost is secondary to that, although there are plenty who seem to focus mostly on this. Radical Feminism, by contrast is absolutely focused on and defined by hostility (indeed active hatred) to men. It is their core belief. And whilst an evangelical may want you to “repe…
/r/MensRights29/01/26 06:48 AM
2

She said she was a radical feminist though. So there is no assumption there. And rad fems are defined by their hostility to men.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 06:42 AM
2

There’s a bit of a difference between an atheist attending a religious therapist and a man attending a rad fem one. Unless either of you are hell bent on converting people to your way of thinking, your personal opinions on the existence or non-existence of God don’t matter much. A Radical Feminist, by contrast, is literally defined by hostility to men in general. A man existing is an affront. Not certain topics.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 06:39 AM
1

It’s related to question of availability of psychological support and if it’s even appropriate surely! In this case, can a rad fem be an effective and supportive therapist for a man, especially one struggling with dating and isolation (rad fems notoriously promote the concept of “political lesbianism” where they encourage women to be lesbians for political reasons even if they’re not physically attracted to women). How can you trust an analyst that has such deep seated issues with men and mascul…
/r/MensRights29/01/26 06:20 AM
2

So a black guy should stick with the same local doctor after finding out he’s an active member of the local KKK chapter then? At least for an MD diagnosis and treatment for medical conditions should be independent of what he thinks of the patient personally. It’s different with a therapist. You have to be vulnerable with them, and trust the judgment and exercises they recommend. How can you trust a therapist when they have to tell you they’re a man hating rad fem?
/r/MensRights29/01/26 06:09 AM
2

Love how you got downvoted!
/r/MensRights29/01/26 06:05 AM
3

There’s no trust. That’s the point. How can there be when the analyst you’re supposed to be sharing your secrets, fears and anxieties with turns out to be someone hostile to your very existence?
/r/MensRights29/01/26 06:04 AM
2

The therapist calls herself a radical feminist. You know perfectly well that means she hates men.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 05:59 AM
2

She’s calls herself a radical feminist. They want all women to be lesbians so they won’t sleep with the enemy! Liberal feminists may claim they don’t hate men. Radical feminists absolutely do. And it’s the “radical feminist” part that’s the issue. Much of the view that lesbians hate men comes from the fact that many of the most vocal lesbians are rad fems.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 05:58 AM
1

If a feminist calls herself a Radical Feminist it’s pretty clear she’s at the very least hostile to men! Rad fems have openly called on women to become lesbians even if it’s against their inclinations, so they don’t “sleep with the enemy”. What does that suggest about their views of men? Radical feminists absolutely hate men.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 05:55 AM
2

The OP said that she’d referred to herself as a RADICAL feminist, and specifically emphasised the word “radical”. Rad Fems are truly hostile to men and masculinity. Whether or not non-rad feminists are is not even relevant. Radical feminists absolutely have animus towards men, and any concept of masculinity. To the point that Rad Fems in the past (and likely present) have tried to tell women to be lesbians even if it’s against their inclinations (literally say that) since otherwise they’re “slee…
/r/MensRights29/01/26 05:50 AM
0

I would not call psychology etc “western medicine”, although I agree the drugs they prescribe treat symptoms. Really physical medicine certainly does address the causes though.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 05:26 AM
1

You can argue whether or not feminists hate men. But there’s little doubt that rad fems do. They’re typically hostile to heterosexuality too. I don’t see how any man, even a gay man, could be in therapy with a rad fem.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 04:22 AM
8

You’re obviously a feminist. What data there is actually shows women have the stronger preference for their own sex. Also whilst sex selective abortions were once mostly targeting females (and were denounced by feminists) they’re now mostly targeting males in the West, and are supported by feminists.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 03:56 AM
8

It’s all too common though. Not just one nobody.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 03:54 AM
2

Hmm. I wonder if she realised what happened!
/r/MensRights29/01/26 02:44 AM
2

I’ve had bad experiences with “therapists”. The better ones were people you could “talk to”. You can “talk to” a guy you sit next to in a bar after a few drinks too! Plenty of “counsellors” aren’t Psychologists or Psychiatrists either, but have some sort minor course behind them. And some have even put their political agenda onto me! As for those who “believe” in it and spend long periods of time with them: I’ve never seen them improve in their mental well being. I do see them get angry at peopl…
/r/MensRights29/01/26 02:43 AM
2

To be fair a feminist, especially a self styled “radical feminist”, is going to be an “expert” on having a victim complex. And they actively promote it to all women they encounter!
/r/MensRights29/01/26 02:17 AM
3

Which is why you know those who regard themselves as “radical” (and therefore the rest as wishywashy) must be a real piece of work.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 02:14 AM
1

Is it 80%+ female in the classes? And are they giving you grief for being male? Just interested.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 02:13 AM
3

Quite. My Aunt became a psychologist. She’s had two nervous breakdowns. An ex-gf had a mother with mental health issues and so had a lot of dealings with “mental health professionals”, and her view was that they all have “problems” and that’s why they’re attracted to the field in the first place!
/r/MensRights29/01/26 02:12 AM
1

Quite. You don’t have to be a feminist or a manhater to not agree with his theories.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 02:08 AM
1

Actually he was abused as a child by the female “help” who was grooming him as her “boyfriend”. This was his “insight” to neurosis stemming from sexual issues: repression, abuse, lack of satisfaction etc. I haven’t heard of him abusing children himself though. I don’t pay much attention to him though.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 02:07 AM
1

If only. There’s a major moment dedicated to pushing this stuff. It’s why they’re so committed to so called “colour blind casting” which is anything but colour blind since they decide at the outset for such choices. They are deliberately trying to reframe the past to fit their “narrative”. But only some things, of course. We won’t see TV shows or movies with black slave owners in the antebellum South (and yes, there actually were some, but it would be a misrepresentation to make it out as if it …
/r/MensRights29/01/26 01:48 AM
1

You speak as if Court Protocol was some carefully guarded secret that only approved initiates were told of. On top of that, Shakespeare’s company of players would provide performances at Court. That alone would have given him the opportunity to observe the Court directly. In any event, how closely does Shakespeare’s Court descriptions truly match the subtle realities of how the Courts of Elizabeth and James actually operated?
/r/MensRights29/01/26 01:26 AM
1

Love how you were downvoted because some people can’t tell the difference between the 1590’s and the 890’s.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 01:08 AM
1

He was a town dweller. From a prosperous family, even as their prosperity faded as he grew older. In fact his father was an Alderman. For Amy who wonder what they means, he was a member of the town council. Only leading citizens would have such an appointment. And it was the late 16th century, not 1200. Books were rare by our standards, but they weren’t the sole preserve of monasteries etc as they were in the Dark Ages.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 01:07 AM
1

And again, Shakespeare wasn’t just some guy off the streets. He didn’t read everything published. But he did have access to some works and was literate. Plus his performances were profitable, and that gave him the funds to buy more books for research. I didn’t mention the concept of the “Universal Man” to claim he’d read everything. Merely that there were relatively few books around, and reading a few actually gave the reader a big percentage of the available knowledge base.
/r/MensRights29/01/26 12:52 AM
1

Plagiarised from whom?
/r/MensRights25/01/26 11:14 AM
8

Excellent response! It’s bizarre. For one they claim he was someone he wasn’t - a deer poacher; a butcher’s son. He was actually the son of a glover, and one who was (in Shakespeare’s childhood) quite successful and a significant figure in his local community. And they claim that no “lower class” person could have possibly written these works. Pure snobbery. And it tends to come from Americans, who supposedly are against class distinctions! I always found this truly ironic as well as bizarre! An…
/r/MensRights25/01/26 11:12 AM
13

SOME believe he didn’t write the works. All of it comes down to classism - and funnily enough it tends to come from Americans! He was NOT born into a poor family. His father was a glover. Even had a coat of arms assigned. The equivalent of upper middle class for us. And he was sent to school. What happened was that he (the father) later fell on hard times. Which is why Shakespeare had to go to the less reputable trade of “acting”, which wasn’t high status. But he did learn to read. And this was …
/r/MensRights25/01/26 11:01 AM
5

Looked around for a “woman”, preferably an “intersectional one” they could credit for it all. A “Moor” and a “Jew” (the Moors were Muslims) and “black” (you see if you’re from Africa you’re automatically black, so she must have been black, and the portraits of her don’t count). A quick check of her poetry would show it’s a different style. And her being the “dark lady” is interesting - are they claiming she’s writing to herself?
/r/MensRights25/01/26 10:51 AM
8

Probably think R2’s shape matches the lesbian stereotype! And his “talking” makes more sense than what comes out of Hedland’s mouth, and facial expressions have a greater range than Amandla Stenberg’s.
/r/MensRights25/01/26 10:48 AM
3

Oh do rebut them. I’m interested in what sort of waving away you’ve got. If you mean restraining orders, I’m well aware they’ve failed to protect women needing protection. But that does NOT mean they’re not weaponised by bad actors. They absolutely are. It’s a sick joke that women (and men) needing protection are let down by these pieces of paper and the lack of police response, whereas those who don’t actually need protection but want either validation or payment get advantaged by something tha…
/r/MensRights23/01/26 08:45 AM
3

For the USA… Well off the top of my head, there’s selective service. Which post Ukraine is now far more likely to be activated. Then there’s that Lhamon woman and her “Dear Colleague” letter leading to those Title XI Kangaroo Courts. Ditched in the first Trump Administration, she, and her law were reinstated by Biden. And who’s to say it won’t be back in 4 years? Men in the US do not have the same rights of opting out of parenthood that women do. Something feminists are in flat out denial about.…
/r/MensRights23/01/26 08:40 AM
2

Another part of the reforms of ~20 years ago was the principle of “default 50:50 parental responsibility”. This is not the same as 50:50 custody, although it does point to it (which is perhaps why so many of the single parents who got divorced during that period have 50:50 custody). It means both parents are responsible for schooling and upbringing and both have a say. Unless there are reasons to show why one parent should not. Well feminists got the heavily feminist influenced Labor Party to du…
/r/MensRights23/01/26 08:28 AM
4

Ok. I live in Australia so I’m more familiar with laws here (so apologies for that). But try this: Feminists lobbied to expand the definition of Domestic Violence (DV) to include “coercive control”. A pattern of “controlling behaviour” including manipulation, belittling, isolation etc. Now whatever you say about physical strength disparities in DV, you’d have to say that “coercive control” is something that women absolutely do. And do on a scale similar to men. But what happened? The feminist gr…
/r/MensRights23/01/26 07:36 AM
6

You’ve not spent much time here have you.
/r/MensRights23/01/26 06:50 AM
12

Why not. Feminists simultaneously claim men being a majority of “STEM students” is proof of “discrimination” and “gate keeping”, whilst women dominating clinical psychology, veterinary science and increasingly non-STEM enrolments is men not stepping up, or women being better, but absolutely not discrimination. And women not being hired for a job is sexist discrimination and bigotry. But women being explicitly hired because they’re women isn’t discrimination or bigotry. It’s whatever a feminist a…
/r/MensRights23/01/26 06:49 AM
5

I agree with the OP’s comment. Feminists and their “allies” frequently quote menses and period pain as “evidence” of women’s “oppression”. One clown, a male feminist that used to frequent this sub a few years back insisted that it was also “proof” of women’s health being “neglected”. He insisted that medical science should be able to “prevent periods” (apparently being on the pill doesn’t count). And this debilitating condition wasn’t taken seriously because “it’s women’s problem”. Well, any man…
/r/MensRights23/01/26 06:44 AM
17

Yeah that gets me too. Feminist activist on social media declaring “we literally birth you” and the great pain women have giving birth, that they somehow have gained a debt over simply by being a woman. It would be like me saying “we” win Congressional Medals of Honour and VC’s when I’m not even a veteran.
/r/MensRights23/01/26 06:34 AM
26

Exactly. Getting prostate cancer, testicular cancer etc is hardly the result of sexism. If you want to see sexism in action, look at the relative attention paid to male specific cancers like prostate cancer and female specific ones like breast cancer, even though they have similar mortality rates. There’s a discrepancy there, but it runs the opposite way to what feminists assert!
/r/MensRights23/01/26 06:21 AM
4

Well women do have the menstrual cycle. And it does lead to mood swings and cramping. But this not only varies from event to event, but greatly by the individual. Some women have much worse cramping that others. My first gf used to tell me her housemate was a “woose” but subsequent gfs mentioned that it has only minor effects on some women and can be fairly debilitating for others. On the other hand they can balance against the fact that they have greater longevity. They’re also not going to hav…
/r/MensRights23/01/26 06:13 AM
0

Simply being a woman doesn’t mean she’s only trolling. She could have had various women telling her this stuff and decide to ask here directly. I personally take queries as if they’re good faith until they show they’re not. And they very quickly expose themselves. I think the actual trolls are mostly trying to provoke some sort of outburst thy fan then get screenshot either to flash around to their cronies to “prove” all our male toxicity (they’re never “toxic” of course no matter what they do),…
/r/MensRights23/01/26 06:06 AM
10

It’s not misogyny to point out laws and policies that discriminate against men. I dare say you’d get angry at the assertion that to complain about women not being to enroll in some universities or courses like engineers a century ago is man hating. I do not doubt that there are some with serious problems with women in general, as opposed to feminism, feminist ideologues, and various discriminatory laws and policies. But do you doubt that there are a lot of feminists, especially amongst the leade…
/r/MensRights23/01/26 06:01 AM
5

Actually the point of the story was the father. It was about “saving Mr Banks”. Helping him properly connect with his children. And his career actually thrived in the end. The author of the book explicitly said this was the case. She was close to her father (a banker), and the stories reflect how she would have liked her childhood to have turned out.
/r/MensRights19/01/26 04:50 AM
240

What gets me is the double standard. They attack men’s clubs and spaces, demanding “admittance”. Then promote ever more women’s only spaces and say it’s “not the same”. And then have the gall to come out and deny that men aren’t allowed their own spaces and it’s “all in our heads”! Gaslighting? You bet! And the excuse it’s about women having “equal access to power” is a red herring. Yes, those big London and New York clubs were a place where the elite made connections. But they don’t limit thems…
/r/MensRights19/01/26 04:44 AM
69

Oh I’ve seen feminist leaning women pushing into gay bars and nightclubs my whole adult life! My city has one of each (there may be more now). And I know plenty of women who had this massive “thing” about going to both of them! The official “excuse” was that they only went to the nightclub “to dance” and didn’t want to be hit on - so a gay nightclub means the men aren’t interested… Sounds sort of plausible. Except they then start dragging their boyfriends there. It happened to me on a few occasi…
/r/MensRights19/01/26 04:25 AM
1

Even if it wasn’t always anti-male (and some of leading feminists always were very anti-male) it’s where we are at the moment.
/r/MensRights07/01/26 07:36 AM
28

Let me guess. This has been designed based upon that “documentary” Adolescence!
/r/MensRights18/12/25 05:34 AM
1

I keep seeing morons on Quora refer to it as a “documentary”.
/r/MensRights15/12/25 06:16 AM
1

Any man would have to be insane for vote for these losers!
/r/MensRights15/12/25 06:12 AM
16

Unfortunately I’ve seen similar things unfold. Women sit around and b*tch about men, and then start to see the “patterns” their friends are complaining about in their own relationships. For example, the phrase “emotional affair” may have been used. So it gets latched onto and applied in a completely different context where it obviously doesn’t apply! It’s why men should always be concerned about their women being involved in these female complaint groups. Much of the toxicity will rub off on the…
/r/MensRights15/12/25 05:10 AM
2

Some are! Others are just parochial. And many (most?) are simply misguided. They either only really think of the issues they (women) face and are blind to men having issues and thus assume that men don’t have them. Or they’ve fallen for the idea that feminism = equal treatment and equality under the law.
/r/MensRights15/12/25 04:51 AM
10

It’s supposedly to stop “cyber bullying”. But I can’t help but think they’re doing this to stop “the manosphere” which they all know about because “documentaries” like Adolescence!! This is the same Government that reframed a man with severe, unmediated and unsupervised schizophrenia who stabbed people in a shopping centre into a story of “toxic men” and “domestic violence” that demanded anti-male laws and heavy funding for feminist DV groups (including from Movember). Schizophrenia? What schizo…
/r/MensRights05/12/25 03:05 AM
18

I’m not sure you’d get an honest answer. Most have infant circumcision. And even those who were older would mostly have had it before they became sexually active. You’d probably have find someone who’s had a medical circumcision to see the difference. And a medical case may not really be applicable to most cases (tight foreskin for example). Anyone who’s had that procedure as an infant won’t remember life before it. So there’s nothing to compare it with. Opposing it for non-medical or religious …
/r/MensRights05/12/25 02:44 AM
3

Oh it’s Lammy behind this “great idea”. Why am I not surprised. A man who thought that Henry VII succeeded Henry VIII (apparently basic number order is too difficult for him) and that Marie Antoinette won the Nobel Prize for physics in the early 20th Century! He claims he got a masters in Law from Harvard. It begs the question as to how some so “intellectually challenged” was able to get it.
/r/MensRights04/12/25 02:24 AM
2

It’s the takeover of the left of politics by identity politics and feminism (the source of identity politics) in particular.
/r/MensRights04/12/25 02:19 AM
1

Oh come now. She served a pretty mean word salad!
/r/MensRights04/12/25 02:06 AM
3

A bit longer than 20 years ago…
/r/MensRights26/11/25 01:43 AM
1

Agreed.
/r/MensRights25/11/25 08:24 AM
5

But but but, women aren’t into sex. Are only victimised into it by “creepy men”. Women are all sainted angels!!!! (/s)
/r/MensRights21/11/25 07:21 AM
2

Just be aware that “the left” is quite capable of using male bodies for the same sort of ends. Plenty of “leftists” are only pacifists when it’s not seen to be a “leftwing” cause.
/r/MensRights21/11/25 07:18 AM
4

Hmm. Except Sarah Everard wasn’t attacked on the Tube was she. She was raped and murdered by as PoS hiding behind his police badge.
/r/MensRights21/11/25 01:37 AM
11

I remember reading that one of her friends declared that she would have been appalled at all the manhating that’s being pushed in her name.
/r/MensRights21/11/25 01:36 AM
4

Except feminists always make excuses for bad behaviour by women against males. And in some cases they celebrate it. And these aren’t just random nobodies on the internet either. We’re talking about Gender Studies academics, big name feminist writers and journalists, even those acknowledged as feminist leaders.
/r/MensRights19/11/25 06:04 AM
3

Except LEAF is not only a feminist organisation, but is recognised as such by other feminist organisations is it not? It’s not just someone showing up and declaring they’re a feminist whilst posting “Kill all men” (oh wait, recognised and respected “feminists” do that too don’t they).
/r/MensRights19/11/25 06:01 AM
1

I love the way it’s “the manosphere” that “pushed young men to voting for Trump in 2024”. Couldn’t possibly be feminism and the various initiatives they’ve promoted, such as discrimination against the said young men, and demonising them that’s actually done it!
/r/MensRights19/11/25 04:37 AM
5

Remember the basic rule of feminism: women ALWAYS have it worse.
/r/MensRights19/11/25 04:30 AM
2

Have a look at the still image labelled “Actual Footage of the Doordash Girl”. It’s from the bell camera. You can see the front door is closed. Not wide open. In fact whilst he hadn’t pulled it fully shut, there is clearly no way she could have seen inside the house without her opening the door. She’s not a victim.
/r/MensRights19/11/25 04:25 AM
2

This one’s unique, at least in terms of the publicity it got. In part because she arrogantly claimed she was a “sexual assault victim”: but also because things have shifted a bit, and she didn’t realise it. What’s more, she was too dumb to realise there was a bell camera. It reminds me of that footage where that carload of frauds staged an accident. You know, they cut in front of a woman, who was able to stop in time, and then reversed straight back into her and got out as if they were victims. …
/r/MensRights19/11/25 04:18 AM
3

Without previous convictions, I’d agree that she’s unlikely to spend time behind bars. The only thing that may change this is the publicity attached to the case. The Authorities may feel the need to make an example of her, and prove that they’re being evenhanded. That said, if it looks like she’ll do time, it’s possible her lawyer will convince her to plead guilty to a lesser charge in exchange for no jail time or felony conviction.
/r/MensRights19/11/25 04:14 AM
1

It cements his position with the facility. It means he’s “an ally” and not “problematic”. It not only makes life easier for him there, but gets him places in certain committees and other such areas which may not be so obvious to people. And beyond this, there’s whatever ideology that he’s promoting. He may well see feminism as a means of promoting it. Look at feminism with its bizarre “alliance” with Islam, or their less bizarre one with the LGBT alphabet soup. With Islam, they use them as a cud…
/r/MensRights19/11/25 01:27 AM
2

For many feminist men, I see their claims of how bad men are as a confession!
/r/MensRights19/11/25 01:09 AM
2

And they’re quick to permaban anyone who doesn’t pander to their convenient little “narrative”.
/r/MensRights19/11/25 01:05 AM
2

Look at the still of this woman doing her delivery. You can clearly see the door is closed, although not properly secured.
/r/MensRights19/11/25 12:57 AM
2

Did you even hear the woman telling the story? And look at the timestamped image of her doing the delivery. You can see the door is shut.
/r/MensRights19/11/25 12:44 AM
3

Watch the video. It literally says she pushed the door open and filmed him. He hadn’t closed and locked it properly. That’s on her surely. Sorry, but she’s in the wrong and brought this whole thing on herself looking for TikTok views, and affirmation.
/r/MensRights18/11/25 03:58 AM
3

Pretty sure this will at least go to the preliminary hearing. The date is set for that. Her own stupidity in making a “viral” spectacle of her actions have ensured that. However there’s quite a while before it comes to a criminal trial. Her lawyer could advise her to plea bargain, where she pleads guilty to a lesser charge (some misdemeanour perhaps) and pays a fine, does community service or gets a suspended sentence. And if she’s got no previous convictions that’s even more likely. Plus there’…
/r/MensRights18/11/25 03:45 AM
1

She’s been charged by the police. And she will appear before the Court in early December. But that’s just a preliminary hearing. The charges could be dropped prior to the initial hearing. Or the Judge could dismiss the case outright. Or the police could drop the case between the hearing and the actual trial date. I suspect that since she’s been charged it will proceed since this case has a certain notoriety. However there may yet be pushback from feminists moaning how a “sexual assault victim” i…
/r/MensRights18/11/25 03:40 AM
1

Well whilst women do go to prison, pretty sure most of them aren’t there for posting nudes of unconscious men on social media! They’re in for robbery, murder, drugs charges. It does not automatically follow that this woman will be imprisoned for what she did. It’s a good sign she’s been charged. Let’s see what the outcome is. And if “the sisterhood” comes to her defense and support or not.
/r/MensRights18/11/25 03:34 AM
5

The first case: he got heavily drunk at home, not out. If he’d got drunk out, he could have done DUI, had an accident and killed someone. He could have been assaulted by some scumbag looking for an easy target to beat up and feel “tough”. He could have been targeted by a mugger as an easy mark. He could have stumbled onto a road or train tracks and been run over. If you’re going to drink to that extent, doing it at home is the least risky choice.
/r/MensRights18/11/25 03:29 AM
6

Let’s see if it goes to court in the first place. And then if the judge puts her in the slammer where she belongs.
/r/MensRights17/11/25 12:52 PM
10

She pushed the door open to film him.
/r/MensRights17/11/25 09:20 AM
1

I think you forgot the “/s”.
/r/MensRights17/11/25 09:19 AM
1

Did she make a complaint to the authorities? Or just declare herself a “victim” online?
/r/MensRights17/11/25 09:17 AM
5

I don’t think she went to the cops and claimed he sexually assaulted her (I could be wrong about this). She just went around declaring she was a SA victim to the net. She’s a POS however it goes and hope she gets EXACTLY what she deserves!
/r/MensRights17/11/25 09:16 AM
5

Not surprised. Let me guess: female SA “victim” facing “charges due to patriarchy”?!!
/r/MensRights17/11/25 09:14 AM
5

TBH, at this point I’m happy enough she’s facing charges! The double standard has been that bad. And the worst of it is that I often wonder if it’s taken the “second coming of Trump” to bring about even this level of equality. It should be a given if we’re so opposed to “revenge porn” and such things that this woman be charged. And if it’s only because the powers that be are fearful that men will vote for “Trump style” candidates or feel the need to placate Trump then it shows how far gone thing…
/r/MensRights17/11/25 09:13 AM
3

That’s the point, is it not?
/r/MensRights17/11/25 09:04 AM
3

He claims she won’t be jailed. That’s not the same thing. The case has some notoriety. So it may well be prosecuted on the back of that. It does not follow that she’ll do time. Look at those girls who murdered that homeless guy in Canada.
/r/MensRights17/11/25 09:03 AM
3

He doesn’t want to be “right”. He is just going from past experience. I think she deserves consequences beyond Doordash dumping her. Feminists love to talk about “revenge porn” and the evil of posting compromising images of women and calling it sexual assault etc. Let’s see if they support this law being applied evenly to a female perpetrator. If they were for real, they should be calling for her to be jailed!
/r/MensRights17/11/25 09:00 AM
3

We don’t even know yet if she’ll actually be prosecuted. I agree she deserves serious sanction. But it is far from clear she’ll go to prison.
/r/MensRights17/11/25 08:54 AM
3

For offences like hers? And women are typically sentenced far less for the same crime than men are.
/r/MensRights17/11/25 08:52 AM
8

Is she?
/r/MensRights17/11/25 08:51 AM
8

She pushed the door open. He hadn’t properly closed it, but it wasn’t wide open.
/r/MensRights17/11/25 08:50 AM
9

No, he didn’t. He’d not shut the door properly to secure it. She decided to push it open. That’s on her. It wasn’t a requirement of the job, especially given the instructions were to leave it at the door. You may as well say that if you forget to latch the window properly you deserve to be burgled! Or the “what was she wearing” stuff about women being attacked.
/r/MensRights17/11/25 08:49 AM
20

You’re allowed to be fully nude in your own house. And whilst drinking to the point of unconsciousness should be avoided, he was at home. If you wanted to “write yourself off” it’s actually “good judgment” to do it that way. He even had the sense to direct them to just leave the food at the front door. His only “poor judgement” was to not make sure the door was properly closed and locked. She had no right to push it open and get “offended”. Let’s hope she faces the consequences of her appalling …
/r/MensRights17/11/25 08:46 AM
2

Excellent. For once justice seems to have been served!
/r/MensRights17/11/25 08:40 AM
3

Exactly. Any male only club (except perhaps the Freemasons) can expect to be routinely harassed; subject to lawfare; its members doxed; accused of discrimination and misogyny. And it’s not just high end male clubs (like the Garrack and Weld Clubs) either. Women force their way into the Men’s Sheds. An organisation expressly for the purpose of fostering male-male connections as a way of combating depression and isolation, especially in older men. If even those aren’t respected, we’ve no shot.
/r/MensRights14/11/25 06:26 AM
1

Well let’s say that one part is the “Hitler” kind and one part is the “Mussolini” kind, with the “Mussolini” lot slowly doing more and more of the “Hitler” policies to show how “authentic” they are and prove to the “Hitler” group that they’re on the same side!
/r/MensRights14/11/25 02:03 AM
2

You raised things they want to deny. The same for there being man haters who are attracted to feminism due to their animus against men rather than their desire to help women. You see it’s very convenient for them to claim that 98%+ of rape perpetrators are men - the fact that the offence is so written in law that it’s virtually impossible for a woman to commit it would detract from that, so they don’t want to know. It’s like a slave owner in the old South saying that his slaves are illiterate an…
/r/MensRights12/11/25 05:04 AM
2

That actually would be a fair description of Mussolini’s Italy before the rise of Hitler and Mussolini slowly introducing anti-Semitic laws to curry favour with him.
/r/MensRights12/11/25 04:52 AM
1

I’m sorry this happened to you. I once tried discussing things with them. It was always a pile on; they never admitted any fault (my presence here counted against me of course), and they have me a permaban as soon as they could. And why? I made a comment that there were misogynists that join mens rights forums because of the animosity to women more than concerning at issues facing men just as there are women who become feminists because they hate men, and that both movements will have a tendency…
/r/MensRights12/11/25 04:47 AM
1

Wow. What an ENORMOUS SCOPE this question has. There’s so many things feminism has pushed that are misleading or plain wrong. But basically the truth is this: feminism relies on half truths, exaggerations, and misinformation. Even when they have a point, they don’t stick to it, but have to turn it into an actual lie. Examples? Men have been voting for centuries: Truth, hardly any men have. Before 1800 it was essentially the wealthiest 3% of men. There were some exceptions. There was a very brief…
/r/MensRights09/11/25 02:58 PM
3

She’s particularly so from what I’ve seen of her.
/r/MensRights05/11/25 01:21 AM
4

She’s hardly an “A” lister. Her main claim to fame is that’s she’s the black Anne Boleyn from that dumb Channel 5 show, and she was the chief lesbian witch in The Acolyte “A powerful leader: yes yes!” She comes across as vacuous and dim in all the interviews I’ve seen on her. And her voice sounds “staged” in all of them.
/r/MensRights05/11/25 01:21 AM
1

I know she kept her job. I also know she’s moved on. Did she simply retire, or did she get promoted or moved sideways? I can’t see evidence. Also I see no indication that she apologised to those she should have apologised to - those boys unfortunate enough to be under her power!
/r/MensRights27/10/25 01:42 PM
2

They don’t count in her world. Certainly not enough for her to apologise to them for the disrespect she showed them. And I don’t buy her “well intentioned” nonsense either. That said, at least she got some public pushback for her appalling behaviour, even though it didn’t cost her much. There’s loads more of them out there, all around the world, who don’t get publicised.
/r/MensRights27/10/25 01:37 PM
1

She’s not at that school anymore. But I can’t see when she moved on. The woman’s LinkedIn page just says she’s a Principal in the Victorian Education system and makes no mention of the schools she’s worked in. She’s either retired, moved to another school, or is now in education administration. At the very least she should have stood up at the next assembly and apologised to the boys, stated that everyone should be treated with dignity and respect, and that she failed them in this and is truly s…
/r/MensRights27/10/25 01:37 PM
1

That’s the only reason why this became so well known. It’s the same with the infamous Mark Pearson case. A fairly prominent journalist got wind of it and attended the trial. Otherwise the story would have been put in the memory hole and forgotten about. I’m absolutely sure these “incidents” are the tip of the iceberg.
/r/MensRights27/10/25 01:29 PM
1

There’s obviously gay MRA’s, as you are proof of, not to mention plenty who post here (although not all who comment here are actual MRA’s, many are just sympathisers). For what it’s worth (and it isn’t much) my take on why there isn’t more is this: Plenty of gay guys, and certainly gay activist groups are still clinging to the “auld alliance” with feminism. After all feminist leaders are disproportionately lesbians (or at least bi) so that would seem to make them “gay friendly”. And plenty of fe…
/r/MensRights27/10/25 01:24 PM
3

From my perspective (and I see myself as an MRA sympathiser rather than an MRA) it’s this: Laws should be equally applied and enforced. Preferment for women in education is no longer needed when it is now clear that women are over represented. Discriminatory hiring and promotions on the basis of sex is sexist discrimination and should stop. After being in force for decades it’s clear that affirmative action programs either don’t work in terms of improving the numbers of women in certain roles ei…
/r/MensRights22/10/25 09:14 AM
1

That cringe (and I’m being kind) ad was an example of the rise of the “woke corporation”. It seems that corporate executives got sold on the idea that “youngans” were different now and would buy products based on the “optics” and on being on the “right side of history” and if the companies adhered to the “right political and social agenda”. It also deflects attention away from the questions of pay and conditions of those who work for the companies or their suppliers! I wonder if those pushing th…
/r/MensRights20/10/25 03:25 AM
28

That wasn’t “the message” of the Gillette ad. The whole point was that it didn’t have anything to do with being clean shaven at all. It was entirely “men are s#it” and “we Gillette believe they can do better”. And “some are, but not enough”. The only time shaving came into the ad was the very first image with that guy (apparently a “toxic male”) is staring to a shaving mirror. The idiot CEO and whoever approved the ad was assuming associating Gillette with the toxic male bashing of #Metoo and fe…
/r/MensRights17/10/25 06:59 AM
6

She’s just one of many. And not very original either. So I’ve no doubt there’s plenty of others in similar positions with similar attitudes. The tide may well be turning, but these people are still in these positions, have not changed their mindset, and will continue to push their agenda.
/r/MensRights17/10/25 01:49 AM
2

It’s been going on since the ‘70’s when feminism really got going. But it really started to ramp up with “quotas” and #Metoo. And #Metoo could be seen as the moment when it went from being anti-male discrimination to bats#it insane. I think it also tied in to two other things: those going ape that Trump had become President (but not willing to consider if they’d done anything to contribute to his appeal) and the Occupy Wall Street movement. Remember them? Well they got drawn off into identity po…
/r/MensRights17/10/25 01:48 AM
1

I agree. It’s about what feminist groups do. Not what an individual woman who thinks of herself as a feminist believes.
/r/MensRights16/10/25 09:14 AM
2

I should point out it wasn’t default 50:50 custody. It was just 50:50 parental responsibility. What this meant was that in the absence of evidence showing neglect or other “unfitness” on the part of one parent, both parents have equal say in decisions over how the child is being raised. This could mean that they both have to agree to a change of school; or that one parent cannot enroll the child into something against the wishes of the other parent. That said, I do think it did have the implicat…
/r/MensRights16/10/25 07:06 AM
12

Fairly common for contemporary feminists unfortunately.
/r/MensRights16/10/25 06:43 AM
75

Yet another example of feminists demanding that “male spaces” be forcibly opened to women, but all female spaces are to celebrated and expanded: “safety” and all that! It’s amazing that I’ve had men (as well as hypocritical feminists) try to deny that we aren’t allowed to have male only spaces, and then insist they’re not allowed in the USA anyway!
/r/MensRights16/10/25 06:41 AM
2

DEI presents itself as “not leaving anyone out” but in practice it means hiring specific categories to fill numbers. Much as it pretends to not be about this, that is EXACTLY what it is. And if I ever doubted this is was dispelled by a session my company put out. It was put on by two (female) HR managers. Firstly they declared that “many” had the “wrong idea” about DEI. And this is all due to nasty and misleading YouTubers supposedly. And it’s not about denying people jobs and promotions to favo…
/r/MensRights15/10/25 05:00 AM
3

And few people had the vote, something which is somehow always forgotten or deliberately ignored in these constant assertions about women being denied the vote. Universal male suffrage was only something that really began to emerge in the middle of the 19th century. In Australia at most you’re looking at 45 years between universal male suffrage and universal female suffrage. Perhaps 50 years in the USA; 10 years in Britain! It’s not the “centuries” that feminists talk about. Those that did vote …
/r/MensRights15/10/25 03:54 AM
21

Ok. Firstly I get the impression that western feminists love to cite the Taliban and “certain Muslim countries” as a justification as to “why feminism is needed”, but women in these countries are never the focus of their campaigns. What exactly do feminist groups in the USA, UK, Australia, Canada etc actually DO to advance women’s rights in these countries? I’ve yet to see anything. But what they DO do is to push quotas, DEI, one way educational “equality” programs, forcing “male spaces” to “ope…
/r/MensRights15/10/25 03:37 AM
10

Ah yes. The Duluth model. Implemented across the English speaking world, if not all of the West! I hope India’s been spared this atrocity, but I’m not hopeful! But here’s the point. If the Duluth Model is “soooo great and effective” then why do the feminists and their lapdog authorities who promote it also claim that DV is at an all time high? If those terribly masculine and “oppressive” concepts of evidence and rationality were applied, that would that not mean the Duluth Model is a failure in …
/r/MensRights14/10/25 02:57 PM
2

Why? Believe all women! And can’t let a few minor things like “facts” get in the way of “the narrative” and “#Metoo” can we! (/s)
/r/MensRights14/10/25 02:53 PM
6

Ah, toxic masculinity. That’s something they cheer as “empowering” when women do it isn’t it?
/r/MensRights14/10/25 02:50 PM
1

Australia is similar, although default “parental responsibility” being 50:50 has ended. That system allowed the father equal say in how the kids were raised - such as what schools they went to; their religious education (or not). It too didn’t mean equal time (although that does happen). Nor did it mean clearly unsuitable fathers (or mothers for that matter) had equal say, but actual evidence for this needed to be produced and verified for the courts to vary equal responsibility. However feminis…
/r/MensRights14/10/25 02:49 PM
3

In Australia we used to have default 50:50 “parental responsibility”. It was one of a few reforms to the Family Court system in the last years of the Howard Government, driven by the recommendations of a Parliamentary committee on Family Court reform. Well the feminists opposed it. And as I’ve mentioned before, thanks to Paul Keating, feminists occupy nearly 40% of the Labor Party’s seats in Parliament. So whoever is leading Labor must kowtow to feminist demands. They first went after the other …
/r/MensRights14/10/25 02:33 PM
1

Well I gave you the example of feminists writing for The Guardian (is that left liberal and feminist enough for you?) heaping praise on FDS. How wonderful it is for these women to be dating multiple men at the same time; to be setting exacting standards as to what men must do for women (whilst women should do nothing for men - that’s what their sub used to say, something skirted over by The Guardian’s writer). This behaviour would absolutely be labeled as “toxic” if men do it. I doubt you like t…
/r/MensRights14/10/25 02:10 PM
1

World wide? You mean Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan? Africa? Except I see little from western feminism that prioritises any of this. As for those DOGE cuts. Two things. Firstly this is going to happen sooner or later. The interest bill on US Federal debt is now higher than the defense budget. The US Government can hardly keep being the piggy bank for the world when it can’t pay its own bills. It’s not the 1940’s. Secondly, if they “chiefly affect women” does that not indicate that such spending…
/r/MensRights14/10/25 02:04 PM
1

Another example is the Tasmanian art gallery issue: https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/sep/27/mona-ladies-lounge-exhibit-discrimination-case-banning-men-appeal-overturned Now this is NOT a private club. It’s not as if it’s the Women’s Institute or Country Women’s Association. Not even a woman’s golf club. It’s an art gallery that advertises exhibitions and charges entry fees. This woman (married to a rich man who apparently indulges her) put a fair amount of the advertised artwork int…
/r/MensRights14/10/25 08:06 AM
1

Ok. Well there was this sub, Female Dating Strategy (FDS). The women claimed they “deserved” some man who was exceptionally good looking, wealthy, tall (of course) and who would treat them like the “Queens” they were and utterly devote his life to them. Whilst they would do nothing for this fantasy guy except allow him to wait on them and satisfy their every whim. And they moaned and complained about all men around them who didn’t match up. They were (are?) essentially female incels, of the ster…
/r/MensRights14/10/25 07:16 AM
1

Not quite sure what you’re arguing here. Feminists typically demand “equal numbers” of women in positions they value, and declare “sexism” and “oppression” if they don’t get them, and call for quotas. And they generally deny that physical strength should be a consideration, to the point of claiming women should have lower requirements and that the tests themselves are “sexist”. It’s one of the reasons why I have such issues with feminism.
/r/MensRights14/10/25 06:43 AM
1

In any event you shied away from the main issue here: the double standard feminists seem to have various behaviours. A man is “sexually aggressive”, or forward in meetings, or “excessively” assertive in working life, it’s condemned by feminists, and called “toxic”. When a woman behaves in exactly the same manner, it’s celebrated and called “empowering”.
/r/MensRights13/10/25 05:40 AM
1

Interesting you mention male physical strength. Plenty of feminists seek to deny it, such as Anita Sarkesian claiming it was “completely false” or one of my old lecturers claiming it was only due to “men being encouraged to play sports” (and women presumably not). Feminists seem to want it both ways: assert that men are stronger so they can discount most cases of DV where the perpetrator is female, but then assert that women are “just as strong” to demand at least equal participation in roles wh…
/r/MensRights13/10/25 05:08 AM
1

To avoid a TLDR, I’ll respond to each point separately. Parental or institutional power of children? Far more men than women have this? Where? Iran? Saudi Arabia? Parts of Africa? Every institution I’ve come across that overseas children is dominated by women, and in most cases run by them too. My friend’s daycare centre for example. Every single staff member, and the managers, were women without exception. And now her daughter is in Primary (Elementary) School, virtually all the teachers are wo…
/r/MensRights13/10/25 04:58 AM
16

Perhaps the girl withdrawing the accusation has something to do with it…
/r/MensRights13/10/25 04:27 AM
7

Of course they didn’t. Chilling effect and all. TBH I think it was her mother that put her up to it.
/r/MensRights13/10/25 04:26 AM
8

It’s an actual direction in the era of “believe all women”.
/r/MensRights13/10/25 04:24 AM
9

It’s fairly obvious what happened in this case. The girl wasn’t quite ready, so she “froze” and after she gets home, her mother demands to know what’s wrong, interprets it as “r@pe” and takes her down to the police station. Later the girl withdraws. She was simply not ready for things, and knew he hadn’t r@ped her. Of course the heavy handed police approach is deliberately designed to get the guilty to “own up”, but in this case comes from “believe all women”. I suspect Liam’s accuser was just m…
/r/MensRights13/10/25 04:21 AM
5

Oh where to start… Watson is not much of a “thinker”. Admittedly many big name feminists aren’t really all that intelligent. Certainly not half as intelligent as they think they are. It’s a “fuzzy discipline” which relies on “feels” and half truths and a strong dose of supposition. She was good at finishing homework and sitting exams. No doubt had a great deal of personal tuition. But I’ve never got the idea that she’s particularly original in her thinking at all. But her droning on as if it’s s…
/r/MensRights09/10/25 07:56 AM
2

I mentioned that I was aware she was a feminist shill. It was Rowling’s particular takedown of Watson I was quoting, and in this case Rowling is quite right. Furthermore I think Watson’s cluelessness goes much further than Rowling’s likely to consider. I think Watson’s entire feminist view is based on imagining the fairly small issues she’s dealt with somehow mean she’s downtrodden due to being a woman. You can get a glimpse of her cluelessness in her HeforShe speech. Rubbish like the “girls qui…
/r/MensRights09/10/25 05:25 AM
8

I don’t particularly want to listen to Matt Walsh (may give it a go later). However I will make an observation. JK Rowling (and yes, I know she’s a nutty feminist shill too) actually summed up Emma Watson quite well in her recent tweet: that she has no experience of real life and is ignorant of how ignorant she really is. Hence labelling marriage “violence” since she’s so utterly clueless about real violence and threats. A daughter of wealthy lawyers: she actually did live a “privileged life”, a…
/r/MensRights09/10/25 04:34 AM
15

She’s a feminist. Feminists love those sort of ridiculous claims. Things “done” to women by “men” or “the patriarchy” are “violence”. Things women done to men by women and feminists are not, even if the act is the same.
/r/MensRights09/10/25 04:17 AM
3

I heard years ago that the BBC used to place ALL their job ads in *The Guardian”. Hmm, what sort of people would be the hires then??
/r/MensRights07/10/25 12:34 AM
1

The question is what evidence is required to establish this? Would the granting of an interim VRO for instance (which is not that hard to get) be regarded as sufficient?
/r/MensRights06/10/25 11:12 AM
1

To “why is the system so broken” line, I think I need to add Keating’s effect on the ALP. Back in the 1980’s, the majority of Labor voters were men, whilst the majority of women voted for the Coalition (the conservative side of politics for non-Australians). Labor was courting the female vote, and already was picking up feminists from the university radical element. But then Federal Leader, Paul Keating, in 1994 used his clout to push through a “quota” system for women. He pushed it through that…
/r/MensRights06/10/25 08:12 AM
1

It’s unusual for The Feminist Daily which normally claims it’s “empowering” for young women to insist on some sort of fantasy view of a relationship. If even they are starting to let through articles that see this attitude as delusional rather than “you go girl”, perhaps things really are shifting. Not before time. But I feel far too late to prevent was is likely to be a horrible reaction.
/r/MensRights03/10/25 08:06 AM
3

I think it was stated to show she was living in a dream world: romantic fantasy and celebrity magazine BS. In the past The Feminist Daily would celebrate these “empowered women* not settling for “mediocre men”. Anyone remember their “celebration” of “Female Dating Strategy”?
/r/MensRights03/10/25 08:02 AM
3

I agree. I’d expected the usual Feminist Daily moan of “how hard done by” women are. But this was quite balanced by their standards. And the reference to a woman who cites fictional and “celebrity relationships” (the poor dear doesn’t grasp that those too are the PR version - Brad and Angelina were the “perfect couple” weren’t they, until they weren’t) had an unsaid hint that she was living in some fantasyland! So by The Feminist Daily’s standards it’s pretty balanced. Perhaps things really are …
/r/MensRights03/10/25 07:59 AM
8

And if he does, he’s no doubt got plenty of better prospects than her!
/r/MensRights03/10/25 07:54 AM
1

Or most white men won’t admit to feeling discriminated against?
/r/MensRights03/10/25 06:09 AM
2

Anyone seen The Despot of Antrim’s take on this? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ld_HIM667Do&pp=0gcJCRsBo7VqN5tD
/r/MensRights03/10/25 06:03 AM
44

And strangely enough the “feminised” Marvel movies bomb, and the Feminised Star Wars has crashed (especially the feminist, girlboss, lesbian outing The Acolyte which is “oh so edgy”, “Yes, yes”). So the “feminised material” seems to be bad business, yet they keep doing it!
/r/MensRights03/10/25 05:34 AM
1

I’m not making any comment about the war in Ukraine. The obvious double standard there has been pointed out time and again on this site. It still bares pointing out. However it’s of little relevance to this case. The killer didn’t know her. And would certainly not have known she was Ukrainian. He probably wasn’t even aware she was foreign. The focus on her being a “Ukrainian refugee” by some invites this reminder. But it’s not really of much relevance.
/r/MensRights12/09/25 02:06 AM
2

It raises alarm because you could think this could happen to your sister, your daughter, your girlfriend or mother. And it could also happen to you. It hits home for a lot of people, especially as it takes place in a train with other people there, and in full frame of a CCTV. That’s one of the reasons why Floyd’s killing resonated far more than it would have had it been a line in the newspaper where it could have been framed as him resisting arrest and dying from his drug addiction whilst the co…
/r/MensRights11/09/25 06:39 AM
0

Oh wait. Feminists will try to reframe that as all men are responsible for her murder. Just give them time, or have media outlets they frequent start to agree on “the narrative”. It looks like it was a racially motivated attack. So if you believe in “hate crime” laws, they should apply here. At least you can then claim they’re evenly applied. Otherwise you give opponents of them full justification to say they’re discriminatory laws and campaign for their repeal. They don’t say this because they …
/r/MensRights11/09/25 06:33 AM
0

Precisely. And it’s a huge problem for the feminists who are mostly responsible for pushing this intersectional “victim Olympics”. This “prejudice plus power” BS. This case could undermine this ideology they’ve been promoting for years if they accept it’s a racially motivated attack, as they’d have to then accept that women can sexually discriminate against men - such as all these guys in prison due to false accusations, a great many of whom are black!!! They may have to, even accept that female…
/r/MensRights11/09/25 06:23 AM
6

A man stabbed by that thug? I agree there would be less coverage. And likely more excuses made for the killer.
/r/MensRights11/09/25 06:08 AM
2

I get that. And if the discussion is why she’s in the USA whilst her father and any brothers are fighting in Ukraine (I suspect they were happy for her to be out of harms way) it would be the most important factor. However it isn’t really a factor in this situation. The killer would hardly have known she was Ukrainian.
/r/MensRights11/09/25 06:06 AM
5

Quite. Random, unprovoked murder isn’t a “right”.
/r/MensRights11/09/25 06:03 AM
8

The killer made a comment about getting a white woman. So in this case misogyny or racism may actually apply. But I wouldn’t be surprised to find them trying to claim that all men everywhere are somehow culpable for the murder. Stay tuned…
/r/MensRights11/09/25 06:03 AM
6

These guys are too wedded to their ideology, which until very recently would have seemed unstoppable in their minds. They could have said that if she was targeted because she was white then absolutely the killer should be charged with “hate crimes”. Instead they’re giving their critics evidence that they don’t think it should apply to racially or sexually (or other identity) motivated crimes, just when their group gets victimised. They’re actually providing evidence that these laws are in themse…
/r/MensRights11/09/25 06:01 AM
2

I agree. Part of the reason why they’ve got their “nickers in a twist” is because the “intersectionality” is a problem for their “inverted” worldview. Reverse the races and they’d absolutely be screaming it was a “racially motivated hate crime”. But they can’t admit that a black guy can be racist against white people. If they did that they might just have to admit a woman can be sexist against men. They already feel their “inverted pyramid” is under threat with Trump’s election and the slow clos…
/r/MensRights11/09/25 05:49 AM
1

He wasn’t an immigrant.
/r/MensRights11/09/25 05:08 AM
6

If it was a white “good ‘ol boy” who did it, it would most likely get a bit of a plug don’t you think? But probably not if it was the same killer.
/r/MensRights11/09/25 05:07 AM
3

Not all. Those moaning Op Ed’s in the NYT aren’t rage bait.
/r/MensRights01/09/25 07:12 AM
1

Neil. In days of yore, if a married couple divorced (which was rare) any children would stay with the household. With the father, who was presumed the head of the household! That’s actual patriarchy. Women lobbied and got that changed. One of feminism’s earliest victories.
/r/MensRights26/08/25 07:40 AM
1

You may want to reconsider some of what you’ve asserted. Child custody still is bad for men. And women getting preferential custody was actually one of the earliest victories of feminism (even before they got the vote). A patriarchy would have the child stay with the patriarch! And if that’s not enough to convince you, think about how much feminist campaigners fight to prevent equal custody being the default. In the US, NOW was consistently opposed default 50:50 custody. In Australia, feminist l…
/r/MensRights26/08/25 03:21 AM
1

They hired people who didn’t like Star Wars or understand it - and most likely the same happened with Marvel. And this lot imposed their own agenda. Not really trying to appeal to “minorities”, but to the sensibilities of Gender Studies students and SJW/feminist mentality.
/r/MensRights26/08/25 03:05 AM
1

I’m late to this thread, but what you’ve described is basically the feminist agenda. There are many “strands” of feminism, from ones with genocidal hatred of men to those who claim to “love men”. However one thing that unites all of them is this idea that if men have something, they have to have it too, and it’s “oppression” of the worst kind until they get it. And this is implicit in everything feminists do: women MUST enter (indeed be preferentially hired) any job that men do, certainly if it’…
/r/MensRights26/08/25 03:01 AM
3

And now she’s not in movies. That worked well didn’t it. Edit: corrected “they” for “that”
/r/MensRights26/08/25 02:37 AM
1

As has been mentioned in many of the podcasts on this subject, it’s pointless if these “new ips” are given to the likes of Kathleen Kennedy and all those these people have hired and stacked the company with. Is anyone foolish enough to think those responsible for The Acolyte are not going to do the same to any new male focused IP?
/r/MensRights26/08/25 02:32 AM
2

Oh for sure. Obama didn’t cause the feminist takeover. Just as the Labor Party in Australia had been indulging feminism before Keating came along and imposed the Quota. This won’t mean much to non-Australians, but Hawke imposed the “gender neutral language” stuff in 1984: Seaman became “mariner”; Chairman became “Chairperson”; fireman became “firefighter”, that sort of thing. He also made a meal out of Susan Ryan being Cabinet Minister. She was petty ineffectual from what I can see: as Education…
/r/MensRights24/08/25 11:19 AM
10

He pandered to and promoted feminism throughout his terms in office. Including stoking the pay gap misinformation. He appointed Lhamon and those Title IX outrages. He’s as much to blame for alienating men from the Dems as anyone.
/r/MensRights23/08/25 06:20 AM
1

It’s the degree to which it’s been captured by identity politics, which ultimately derives from feminism.
/r/MensRights23/08/25 06:17 AM
5

He was President for 8 years and constantly pandered to them.
/r/MensRights23/08/25 06:13 AM
15

It’s interesting to speculate how things would be had McCain won in 2008.
/r/MensRights23/08/25 06:10 AM
1

Calling her “Bond” is clearly to represent her as an established male character.
/r/MensRights20/08/25 09:25 AM
1

He’s not called “Cinderella”. His name is “Fella”, not “Cinderfella” (that’s the movie) much less “Cinderella”. So it’s actually more like La Femme Nikita than making the Bond character itself do a gender swap.
/r/MensRights20/08/25 04:54 AM
2

No it isn’t. The “code” is 007. Bond is the person’s name.
/r/MensRights20/08/25 03:33 AM
1

You seriously can’t see why anyone could be upset about it? Come on.
/r/MensRights20/08/25 03:31 AM
1

Who cares? Feminists and those who pander to them clearly!
/r/MensRights20/08/25 03:29 AM
3

That’s the actions of feminists summarised.
/r/MensRights20/08/25 03:27 AM
1

And? It was a Jerry Lewis vehicle from 65 years ago.
/r/MensRights20/08/25 03:24 AM
1

She never admitted there was even an issue there. She made out as if she never drank (perhaps she doesn’t, or perhaps she’s just plain dishonest). But clearly she wants it to be the case that it’s enough for a woman to show her judgement was impaired. I wonder at what engagement these people have had with the real world.
/r/MensRights20/08/25 01:01 AM
1

How do you define that though? I had a long “discussion” here with a German feminist back in 2022 where she was insisting that if a woman had a drink she couldn’t consent to sex. When I pointed out that this “theory” meant that if a husband had a “romantic anniversary dinner” with his wife and she had a glass of wine, he was a “rapist” if he had sex with her afterwards even if she initiated it! She had a great deal of trouble dealing with the concept and kept coming back to “respect in relations…
/r/MensRights18/08/25 07:16 AM
1

The problem is that feminist groups typically either dismiss these things (“cry me a river”, or “women have it worse” that sort of thing) or if they do acknowledge there is an issue deny that any of their actions have a negative impact and instead claim it’s “toxic masculinity” or “Andrew Tate and the manosphere” or men needing to “check their privilege” that’s the issue, and that it’s all “patriarchy hurts men too”. And since such feminist groups typically claim to speak for all women, it’s eas…
/r/MensRights18/08/25 05:48 AM
2

Grooming is most commonly applied to pedophiles these days. And I’ve little doubt that that’s why you’re using it as a way of comparing “the manosphere” to child molesters. And no, these people don’t differentiate between MRAs and Andrew Tate.
/r/MensRights13/08/25 07:32 AM
1

Oh another one hiding behind the dictionary. Well the word “rape” is defined in the dictionary as meaning “an act of plunder, violent seizure or abuse” and “act of seizing or carrying off by force” in addition to the usual use of the word. How about calling the Chancellor a “r@pist” of some other government members because of their taxation polices etc? Would you not object to the obvious connotations?
/r/MensRights12/08/25 10:32 AM
2

“Groomed” when referring to minors has very definite connotations, as you’re certainly aware of. And I’ve little doubt that’s why you’re using the term.
/r/MensRights12/08/25 08:29 AM
6

“Probably does engage with suicide prevention indirectly”???? So basically you have no idea, you’d just like to think this is the case! So I think we can dismiss your earlier assertion that these “referrals” have “nothing to do” with MRA’s or with concern about the way boys are treated in the education system or discriminated against in employment as at best wishful thinking on your part. So think on this. What is it about Adolescence that may get parents (or social workers - highly likely to be…
/r/MensRights11/08/25 04:20 AM
3

Absolutely!
/r/MensRights11/08/25 04:08 AM
6

With all respect soggy, you aren’t the one who sets this policy are you? How can you claim this isn’t what the “policy” is supposed to address? Or what leads to referrals? That show explicitly talked about the “80:20 rule”. So any discussion of this short of outright dismissal is going to be “grooming” by your definition surely.
/r/MensRights11/08/25 04:07 AM
3

Oh come now Soggy, that is exactly what they are doing. They blamed it all on “the manosphere” in that overrated show. And it’s not a “mistake” either. Did you see Thorne’s interviews?
/r/MensRights11/08/25 04:03 AM
3

Oh “groomed”, as if you’re saving them from pedophiles. And from the same authorities who did nothing over Rotherham - actual grooming going on their soggy. But I suppose it’s all OK if you have the right religion, skin colour or “identity”, right?
/r/MensRights11/08/25 03:53 AM
2

Oh here we go: Andrew Tate, Andrew Tate, Andrew Tate. Apparently this one guy is the entire “manosphere”. Has it occurred to you that the obsession with him by certain figures is only convincing those they’ve patronised and put down most of their lives by these same figures that Tate must be onto something? Or that the constant put down of masculinity and declaring it to be toxic has left the field to people like Tate by default? Or that they’re using him to try to shutdown any discussion of the…
/r/MensRights11/08/25 03:50 AM
5

Wow “systematic”, a word beloved by “progressives”, especially feminists. It makes them sound “educated” and “intellectual” and at the same time denying that they do the same things, or that those they declare to be “oppressor groups” don’t also suffer for this by asserting it’s “not systemic”. So boys are “not systematically discriminated against in schools” although the teachers are overwhelmingly female. However a female engineer “is” “systematically discriminated against” because most of her…
/r/MensRights11/08/25 03:33 AM
6

And it’s been a “rousing success” in preventing terrorism hasn’t it!! But even if it were, what does it say that they’re now claiming boys getting annoyed with being put down by a feminised education system are the same as Islamist suicide bombers?
/r/MensRights11/08/25 03:22 AM
0

It’s a “documentary” according to Starmer.
/r/MensRights11/08/25 03:13 AM
6

So not “preschool” then. The truth is bad enough. No need to give feminists an opportunity to dismiss it by focusing on an incorrect claim.
/r/MensRights11/08/25 01:58 AM
24

They’re not much better here.
/r/MensRights06/08/25 02:37 PM
176

Wow. The Mexican Greens are a different breed to those who use the term elsewhere. More power to them.
/r/MensRights06/08/25 09:40 AM
1

Feminism very much does this. Now and in the past. Feminism shuts down any discussion of boys increasingly poor performance in schools. Firstly they denied it was happening, and were still complaining that girls were “short changed” in schools even as girls were overtaking girls across the board. Then they ignored boys falling behind in most subjects and tried to keep the focus on girls “closing the gap” in maths (this still happens today with maths). And then they just celebrate girls dominance…
/r/MensRights05/08/25 02:38 AM
1

These laws were set up 50 to 60 years ago! When Obama was a child. Long before he returned to the US after his time in Indonesia. And way before he became President and spouted this feminist propaganda.
/r/MensRights05/08/25 02:32 AM
1

He’s a feminist. And he lives in a land where feminism has defined the need for “active, affirmative consent”. In other words women (but not apparently men) need to positively say “yes” and not merely not object. For what it’s worth I don’t think he’s committing SA. What I’m saying is that I can understand why others would see him being “hoist by his own petard”.
/r/MensRights04/08/25 09:23 AM
5

Oh absolutely. Movember was a fundraiser/awareness raiser for male health, particularly prostate cancer (and testicular cancer), and has now been taken over by women who are steadily redirecting its funding to feminist brainwashing programs. And yet they still make out it’s what it always was. They even celebrate the fact most of their employees are women. As well as the leadership. Still waiting for the likes of NOW to “celebrate” most of the people on their payroll, including the majority of t…
/r/MensRights04/08/25 09:17 AM
3

When the “solution” to boys doing poorly at school (and this is something that gets worse year on year) is to hold them all back a year, you have to ask the question: is he part of the problem, or part of the solution? Boys used to do much better, and not that long ago either. Surely the first stop should be to look at what changed.
/r/MensRights04/08/25 06:11 AM
2

Have a look at the feminist reaction to the murder of Sarah Everard, just to name one instance. And it’s not a once off either. Yes, they have “male allies” (like Reeves and Newsom). But they actively support overt and legal discrimination against men and boys in education, in employment, in Family Court, and increasingly even in the criminal law.
/r/MensRights04/08/25 06:01 AM
1

I don’t know. Feminism seems to do well enough.
/r/MensRights04/08/25 05:58 AM
4

Feminism always relies on half truths and misconceptions. As far as I can see, this “bank account” stuff comes from the 1974 equal credit act. This was a law that applied to “credit cards” and bank loans (and in the pre-deregulation era when it was much harder to borrow money). It is NOT about back accounts, which are a separate thing. Credit cards emerged in a time when married women would typically quit work to raise children. So naturally enough, banks wanted her husband to be guarantor of th…
/r/MensRights04/08/25 05:56 AM
4

Schools have been adjusted to promote the performance of girls. He wants them to stay adjusted.
/r/MensRights04/08/25 05:42 AM
2

Why do they do this? Well some don’t even bother with the pretence. But in general it’s a combination of a number of factors: One is to appeal to women like you. The idea is to draw you in “oh we don’t hate men, we love men”. And it keeps women listening to them whilst they work them over. And in the end these women still think they don’t hate men, even as they’ve internalised ideology based on hating men. And then there’s the other factor: most women who regard themselves as feminists are heter…
/r/MensRights04/08/25 05:27 AM
1

I think we all knew they’d get away with a slap on the wrist.
/r/MensRights04/08/25 05:07 AM
2

It’s typical feminist. Take Big Red: women getting custody of kids is actually “discrimination against women” and therefore misogyny (it wasn’t even her words. She just read a passage from Jezebel). The fact that these women want custody, and major feminist groups are the main force keeping things this way don’t count. The feminist mind will always turn any negative thing for men into really being due to “misogyny”. Men most likely to die in wars - that’s because of discrimination against women …
/r/MensRights04/08/25 04:58 AM
9

As has everything. Including Men’s Health Charities such as “Movember”.
/r/MensRights04/08/25 04:49 AM
1

Wow. A Pascal fan. You must be. I never claimed he was “the only one” who promotes the feminist type line. Nor does he have to be. The point is that he’s done this very consistently, and they have STILL turned on him. I’m sure his previous advocacy for them has reduced the sympathy many here have felt for him as it’s a case of him being hoist by his own petard. For what it’s worth, I think their attacks have shown that no man is safe from their venom, no matter how much of an “ally” they are. An…
/r/MensRights04/08/25 04:47 AM
1

Falsely accused? He’s very “touchy-feely”, and it does look a bit “off”. He is from a Chilean family (and was born there), so this may be a bit more “normal” in that culture (I’ve known a few Chilean people, but none of them were particularly “touchy feely”). In any event he’s lived in the US for years and should be well aware that many find it “odd”. As I see it, the current criticism of him is more proof (as if we need any more), that these feminists are NOT our friends. That no matter how “su…
/r/MensRights04/08/25 04:35 AM
1

I think many here dislike him and see the criticism of him a case of him being “hoist by his own petard”. It’s hard to imagine him defending someone else under such feminist based attack. And by the standards of the “continual, positive consent” he’s a “violator”. It’s not enough for them to “not object” after all. The actual case is that he’s been getting away with this for ages, but they’ve averted their eyes because of his politics and “identity”. He’s now discovering you don’t stay in the go…
/r/MensRights04/08/25 03:52 AM
7

Is it? How about “no one is illegal”? Or his general promotion of feminist approved causes? And he’s certainly not getting “touchy/feely” because of a trans sibling?
/r/MensRights04/08/25 03:45 AM
5

That’s not the only cause he pushes though, is it?
/r/MensRights04/08/25 01:36 AM
4

It actually IS believe all women though, isn’t it.
/r/MensRights02/08/25 04:01 AM
3

By this logic, every man who’s had sex with a feminist is a victim of sexual assault.
/r/MensRights01/08/25 01:55 AM
1

Yet again the absolute obsession with Andrew Tate. They’ve been pushing this line for years though. I’ve repeated it time and again, but there was a lesbian/feminist Member of Parliament (MP) in my State. She stood up in Parliament was was carrying on about how much bigger a man’s carbon footprint was compared to a “vegetarian woman” (she was obese btw). And (hint hint) men were the cause of climate change. A while later it was election time. And I was driving into a small supermarket in a “plus…
/r/MensRights31/07/25 06:16 AM
8

Hadn’t heard of that one before. Aside from another example of “pretty privilege”, it explodes the myth that women are not drawn by “looks” (unlike “superficial men”) but by some deep “spiritual connection” considering how they were in their thousands gushing over a violent criminal because of how he looked.
/r/MensRights30/07/25 01:22 AM
1

For US readers, AFL sort of combines the speed of basketball with the physicality of NFL. The AFL itself only dates from 1987 when the West Coast Eagles joined. Prior to that there were individual State leagues. The Sydney Swans are an anomaly. They were a Melbourne club (South Melbourne) who had fallen on hard times and relocated to Sydney (rugby league is the main winter sport there, even now). Not one of the women in the women’s league could match it against one of the male players. And even …
/r/MensRights29/07/25 08:54 AM
1

It sounds like it was “go away” money. Except paying looks like an admission of guilt to many.
/r/MensRights29/07/25 07:05 AM
9

The worst is that feminists deny they say “believe ALL women”. Deny they want to reverse the presumption of innocence. And deny they want to end due process. Yet they very clearly do, as they are either attending and supporting such acts as this or defining us with their silence. How many still think those Duke lacrosse players are rapists? And how many men who didn’t have their financial resources are in prison right now due to similar accusations?
/r/MensRights29/07/25 06:59 AM
10

Her working in the legal field probably makes her more aware that where there’s impairment due to alcohol, it’s a one way street. Also a shockingly high number of women see an erection as “consent”.
/r/MensRights29/07/25 06:54 AM
1

So he should have gone and reported it to HR that her bra was showing? Well for one there’s such a double standard in this he’d likely have been accused of sexist harassment for that; creating a “hostile work environment” and all the rest. But even if they’d acted against her, what do you think the result would be with a woman so keen to head off to HR over such a comment? Running to the media with the tales of the sexist harassment of women being enabled by HR in a sexist, chauvinistic company.…
/r/MensRights27/07/25 10:05 AM
2

The best part of this is that having lied and committed abuse, the Magistrate declares that she was not aware of how bad her abuse was. She was a lawmaker. She was one of the people who considered and passed laws that tightened rules on DV. In fairness she was out of Parliament when they voted in this “coercive control” stuff. But what does it say when they claim the actual people who pass laws have “no idea” that their conduct is contrary to the law?
/r/MensRights27/07/25 08:15 AM
1

Quite. From what I can see this is just an upgunned “Are We Dating the Same Guy” “service”, with a bit more “#Metoo” chucked into it and an easy opening icon. Plus they lock men out so it can be a full on b#tch session with no policing.
/r/MensRights25/07/25 05:36 AM
10

Do you honestly think the Tea app is restricted to mentioning men who’ve been convicted of serious physical assaults and attempted murder?
/r/MensRights25/07/25 03:27 AM
5

And, of course, it’s hating women to suggest any of them may just possibly misrepresent things for revenge or plain spite. I mean no woman has ever done such things, right?
/r/MensRights25/07/25 03:26 AM
1

But that’s the point isn’t it. Men are banned. So you can’t defend yourself. In fact you’d have no idea you’re even on it. Just suddenly find you’re being shunned or seeing that others are whispering about you as you go about your business. And the only hope is that a female friend or relative happens to not only be a member, but sees the post and is able to refute the claims. That is a very serious problem is it not?
/r/MensRights25/07/25 02:34 AM
1

Of course he was a “progressive”. He heavily promoted the “progressive mindset”, such as it is. Note that what “progressive” means now is quite different to what it meant at the time of Teddy Roosevelt. Or even in the ‘60’s. Today it’s essentially a grand mass of virtue signallers, SJWs, and feminists - who are really the source of this. And Obama enabled and promoted them.
/r/MensRights25/07/25 02:20 AM
6

Absolutely!!! The worst is that they meet in a bar, she’s had one drink and he’s had a good few. She can have him arrested for “rape”, but nothing happens to her.
/r/MensRights24/07/25 10:02 AM
6

He doesn’t “cheat” if he’s single. But certainly he isn’t “raped”, at least according to feminists and law enforcement.
/r/MensRights24/07/25 09:28 AM
1

Is it limited to “criminal convictions” and a map of “registered sex offenders”? Somehow I doubt it. Do they insist on people who post on providing verifiable evidence to back up their claims? Is there any avenue to respond to claims? Do they delete posts that fall short? I have to say I have my doubts, and they’re not assuaged by your claims above. My basic response to you is as follows: I did not claim that none of those “exposed” on sites such as the Tea app are predators or villains. But I D…
/r/MensRights24/07/25 06:32 AM
2

Why would you think it wouldn’t be abused? #Metoo was abused; Are We Dating the Same Guy was abused. Why wouldn’t this? It’s made for the malicious and plain vicious. And how can they possibly verify any of the claims made?
/r/MensRights24/07/25 01:59 AM
2

What it’s “sold as” and how it actually is are two different things. Feminism is a clear example of this.
/r/MensRights24/07/25 01:52 AM
8

From the sounds of it, she went “straight to HR”. She didn’t just get “uncomfortable” but made it an official complaint straight away. The implication of such stories as this is to not mention such things. Even if HR do not take action and dismiss it, no one needs this sort of thing. And he’ll still have to work around this woman. So say nothing. And if women find coworkers aren’t alerting them to embarrassing things like this, they should understand why.
/r/MensRights24/07/25 01:42 AM
2

You do realise “equal pay” has been mandated by law for well over half a century. In the US pretty much through Obama’s lifetime. The “gender pay gap” is contrived. All serious studies have shown this. In Australia, the Government Department that runs up these “numbers” admitted to the Senator questioning them that when they claim there’s a “gender pay gap” in airlines, they’re actually comparing the income of the cabin crew to the pilots. Most cabin crew are women after all. And this is excused…
/r/MensRights24/07/25 12:53 AM
2

It won’t endear him to those he’s talking down to in the Dems who are largely following what he did though.
/r/MensRights23/07/25 07:55 AM
1

Well you forget what seems to be the basic, guiding principle of feminism: it’s OK when women do it.
/r/MensRights23/07/25 03:38 AM
21

He was in office until late January 2017. That’s just over 8 years ago. And he not only kept making those statements, but he doubled down on them throughout his terms. And if you really believe there wasn’t much of a “gender war” when he took office, surely that makes his responsibility for the current mess even greater.
/r/MensRights23/07/25 03:30 AM
1

She was a stubborn woman, and something of a technophobe (he was something of a tech enthusiast - he would have wanted an iPhone if they’d been around then I’m sure). She never had a washing machine more advanced than the twin tub. And my mother once bought her a steam iron. When that eventually failed, she replaced it with a non-steam iron and used this old water bottle and white cloth to do the ironing. She tended to prefer things that were solid and reliable and which she had full control ove…
/r/MensRights23/07/25 02:56 AM
14

It’s just so he can sit back and tut tut at the current Dem leadership. The problem is that he was heavily responsible for putting them on that path. And I don’t recall him making comments about not alienating men when it would have mattered a couple of years back. Instead he says nothing until after Trump comes back, and worse, waits until bad polls come out that has them worried about the mid-terms (still well over a year away). He’s part of the alienation. If he won’t admit his own mistakes, …
/r/MensRights23/07/25 02:04 AM
5

Pelosi? Ethical? Ha ha ha!!!
/r/MensRights23/07/25 01:59 AM
5

He could admit he made a mistake. He claimed his views had “evolved” on SSM for example. I haven’t seen the video yet. Does he admit he was one of the “progressives” that neglected men? If he doesn’t, he isn’t taking any accountability is he.
/r/MensRights23/07/25 01:55 AM
12

Quite. I kept seeing footage of him berating men and repeating feminist claims, such as the misleading “pay gap” line (of course his own Admin was “guilty” in his terms). He’s also the one who appointed Lhamon in the first place, and he certainly didn’t rein her in over his “Dear Colleague” letter.
/r/MensRights23/07/25 01:52 AM
8

You’ve got a point. However the Dems are losing men in large numbers. And it’s most stark in younger age brackets. They’re holding up better amongst non-white men, but my understanding is that they’re losing ground there too. The real irony as far as I can see is that he was one of the big pushers of what is now called identity politics and in particular the feminist line. And it’s this promotion of feminist ideology that has led to the neglect of male issues and ultimately the alienation of men…
/r/MensRights23/07/25 01:47 AM
30

The problem is that it’s as much his fault as anyone else’s surely. Looking from afar he kept beating the feminist drum, including heavily promoting the “pay gap” line (of course his Admin had an even bigger “pay gap” as he himself defined it, but that was OK apparently). Does he admit his own failings here? That he promoted feminist (mostly well off women) interests to the detriment of men?
/r/MensRights23/07/25 01:43 AM
15

Wasn’t he one of the chief feminist cheerleaders?
/r/MensRights23/07/25 01:40 AM
1

It’s easy to do that. Part of the problem is that it’s common for men to have an idealistic view of women. And that’s mostly because they haven’t been amongst women when they have their “bitch session”. As I said, my eyes were opened at the age of 18 when I was the sole male amongst a group of 18 year old girls, but seated so I was out of eye shot and they forgot I was there. It certainly cured any misconceptions I may have had about women. And I’ve separately seen “bitch sessions” where they tu…
/r/MensRights23/07/25 12:17 AM
1

Count yourself lucky some Karen didn’t call the cops on you as a likely molester.
/r/MensRights22/07/25 07:07 AM
2

Feminists always want a “pick and choose”.
/r/MensRights22/07/25 07:05 AM
2

It’s common. Women look at what they do - see no man there and decide she’s “left to it”. They just don’t stop and think. And because it’s not in front of her she doesn’t notice.
/r/MensRights22/07/25 07:02 AM
1

That’s the real problem. And it’s clearly true for feminists.
/r/MensRights22/07/25 06:59 AM
1

Why do I get the impression that they’re counting picking up kids (school or daycare) and shopping as this “outside work”. Most of the “studies” I’ve seen in the past just restricts it to inside housework anyway.
/r/MensRights22/07/25 06:58 AM
2

The issue is that most of us are fed up with this constant feminist whinge (or “whine” if you prefer). They’re not talking about the housework my grandmother did in the immediate post war. She had twins and didn’t have a washing machine at the time. Instead she had a “copper” which soaked laundry at just below boiling; a wash tub, a scrubbing board and a mangle. A few years later she got a twin tub. But in her early days of married life, washday was physically demanding, risked injury, and was a…
/r/MensRights22/07/25 06:55 AM
3

It can be difficult to NOT hate feminists. Especially when they openly talk about making up data (as that appalling legal academic who Bettina Arndt mentioned in a recent post) openly boasted of on YT. However we need to draw a distinction between feminism and women. And even women who regard themselves as feminists are not necessarily aware. Many just think it means women being equal before the law and able to pursue a career. And others simply focus on the troubles of their own life and just a…
/r/MensRights22/07/25 06:42 AM
6

Wow. I registered (although not subscribed) to NYT to read what she was on about. This woman is not only a feminist, but seems to be channeling Carrie Bradshaw from Sex in the City (I guess this gives her age away). I mean seriously: had an “open marriage”; was seeing a guy who kept saying he wasn’t up for a relationship and yet ditched her husband, supposedly for this “J” guy (perhaps she imagined he only thought this because she was married). Seriously, if I were approached by a woman in an “o…
/r/MensRights22/07/25 05:55 AM
9

I’d take them with a sack of salt!!! Most people have automatic washing machines, and many (most?) have dryers. In my city people still mostly hang washing on the line and save the dryer for wet days, but I’m aware that’s not the case in many places. It takes 5 minutes to load a washing machine, add the detergent and set it running. And 5 minutes at most to load it into a separate dryer. Running a dishwasher is similar. But how are these “calculated”? The runtime of these machines? Of course it’…
/r/MensRights21/07/25 07:49 AM
1

“Structural Oppression” is really just an exercise is pseudo intellectualism to enable feminists to claim they’re “oppressed” long after any justifiable complaint has been removed. And worse, will enable them to continue to complain “oppression” long after things are overwhelmingly in their favour - education is a clear example of this. I’ve frequently made the point here is that even if every.single.decision making position was occupied by women (all elected officials, every CEO, all executive …
/r/MensRights21/07/25 04:59 AM
1

Who do you think you are? You have no idea who I am and what my experience is. You have not the slightest idea of my experience at school (which is where most of this bullying occurs). I never quite fitted in with some of this “macho” stuff, at least as those kids defined it. I was more likely to read books than kick around a football. But most males did. I get that. My NOT being bullied for being as I was is NOT THE SAME as forcing all boys to be like me, or whatever thing feminists want boys t…
/r/MensRights19/07/25 07:09 AM
1

Only if it’s actual equality. For feminists, that’s a one way street and always has been.
/r/MensRights19/07/25 05:46 AM
1

You do realise that not everything said here is about you don’t you? Masculinity is a broad topic. But many (most) men actually broadly fit into it quite well and without being forced. Schools and other institutions under feminist influence are seeking to feminise men - their increased banning of physical play in recess for example. This is quite different from removing pressure on men and boys to conform to a particular pattern of behaviour. It’s simply imposing another one on them, or attempti…
/r/MensRights19/07/25 05:39 AM
64

It’s hilarious that these feminists taught “civil disobedience”, obviously never for one second thinking it would ever be used against them!!!!
/r/MensRights18/07/25 03:26 AM
3

You can say that for most women who write regularly for The Feminist Daily.
/r/MensRights18/07/25 12:47 AM
2

You’re right. It’s not sarcastic at all. Just moaning.
/r/MensRights18/07/25 12:45 AM
1

The school system for one, especially in the US if there’s any substance to the claims that are being made. Not letting the kids do normal rough and tumble (I don’t mean fighting or bullying); and even confiscating footballs so they can’t throw them around during recess. That’s trying to force the boys to act like the girls. And very much attempting to “feminise” boys.
/r/MensRights17/07/25 04:07 AM
7

But they’re our superiors who know better than us in all things. The same ones who talk about “mansplaining” are often quite ready to tell us all about what it’s like to be a man and how “privileged” we must be and tell us what our motivations are at all times. Self knowledge is not a well known feminist virtue is it?
/r/MensRights16/07/25 02:46 PM
5

I’ve definitely been hated for being a boy - by my last Primary School teacher when I had just turned 12. She hated all the boys in the class.
/r/MensRights16/07/25 02:44 PM
3

Ain’t that the truth. I think it’s in part related to the much maligned 80:20 rule. They’re happy for the bulk of males to be like this, and then ignore them for the “bad boys” they’re actually attracted to, and when the “bad boys” (predictably) treat them bad, blame the 80% for it and double down. And so the cycle continues. But there’s a couple of other features here too. One is that those pushing this are actually a minority. Most just acquiesce without giving it much thought. It’s only if an…
/r/MensRights16/07/25 04:00 AM
2

One. You’re quite right that it is demonisation. But they are particularly demonising “traditional masculine traits”, which is part of it. Two. From what I can see, this is what people here really object to when they talk about the “feminisation” of men. For example: the way the education system expects boys to act like girls. I strongly suspect this is part of the reason for the rise of Andrew Tate and boys suddenly becoming more aggressive in schools (if there’s any truth at all to these latte…
/r/MensRights16/07/25 03:27 AM
9

That’s not what I’ve seen. Plenty of gay men post here. Many have raised the issues of being sexually harassed by women (“faghags”), or things such as gay bars and nightclubs being invaded by straight women. Even I’ve commented about how such women drag their boyfriends there. The whole point of a gay bar is so that men there have every reason to assume that other men there also have same sex attraction, and hence it is “safe” to approach. Something that is clearly compromised by such behaviour.…
/r/MensRights16/07/25 01:42 AM
8

Says who? You? So that’s just your subjective opinion.
/r/MensRights16/07/25 01:23 AM
2

If you want to see feminist double standards, just look at practically anything they say.
/r/MensRights16/07/25 01:15 AM
10

I think that’s the issue isn’t it. Then complaint is that they’re not being left alone, but are being forced into this “femboy” box - which these feminists don’t actually seem to like anyway.
/r/MensRights16/07/25 01:03 AM
4

Actually that type of “masculinity” largely comes naturally to a lot of (most) males. There is a difference between wanting a society to be more open and accepting of men who are not stereotypically “masculine” and seeking to impose a feminised, and inconsistent, revised male identity.
/r/MensRights16/07/25 01:01 AM
2

That’s a bit reductive. And the current attempt at “feminising men” is also imposing identity on men and is certainly not being done for the benefit of the vast majority of them. There is a difference between NOT forcing all males to conform to a masculinity stereotype and trying to FORCE all of them to become some feminised male, which is as much against the nature of most males as the macho stereotype is against the nature of many it was imposed on. You surely can be more accepting of more “fe…
/r/MensRights16/07/25 12:56 AM
3

And that’s the point. I also think it’s a bit off to call others he’s never met “NPCs” (and “toxic”) when his descriptor reads like a collection of buzzwords, that are actually mutually contradictory (“non-binary” AND “male”????). In any case the issue of the “feminising of men” is actually about certain sections of society seeking to impose this on males and boys in particular along with this “toxic masculinity” smear. Is that not the same sort of suppression of identity that he clearly has iss…
/r/MensRights16/07/25 12:36 AM
5

Non-binary, femme male? You sound like you’re mixing up your descriptions. It’s funny how someone who apparently doesn’t like to be “judged” by others and put into some box has apparently no problems at all with passing judgements and “putting into a box” vast numbers of people you’ve never even met, or apparently even interacted with online.
/r/MensRights16/07/25 12:20 AM
4

When convenient.
/r/MensRights10/07/25 04:22 AM
15

And speaking of “strong, educated, empowered women”. Have a listen to this one: https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/perth-drive/fiona-argyle-nedlands-resignations/105504882 For any interested, her local government area includes Dalkeith (which is where this children’s hospice was to be located). It’s my cities equivalent of Toorak, Bel Air, Chelsea etc. And if you look her up in LinkedIn you’ll see a mass of inflated claims (following up with her having “almost 3 degrees”). Interesting how in…
/r/MensRights08/07/25 08:05 AM
15

Not surprised at all. Certain anti-terrorism legislation was used by Local Authorities to investigate payments of Council Tax - when it was explicitly supposed to be limited to the funding of terrorist activities. In Australia, Keating introduced the Tax File Number after the Australia Card got dropped following protests. He promised it would not be cross linked on various ways. He didn’t keep that promise and most of the surveillance people were worried about with the Australia Card got in anyw…
/r/MensRights08/07/25 07:35 AM
3

It’s used when boys (ie actual kids, prepubescent) do rough and tumble, play fighting, catching various invertebrates, climbing trees etc. It was never intended (nor is it really used) to describe the behaviour of grown men. It’s one of the more offensive parts of modern feminism that they impart their dislike of men onto young children.
/r/MensRights07/07/25 04:06 AM
1

My take is that the feminists conflate that phrase with “men will always be men” line from that old Jack Jones song “Wives and Lovers”, and now can’t tell the difference. It’s the same with “rule of thumb”. That really is a carpenter using the thumb to provide a rough measurement (approximately 1 inch), being a rough estimate. Feminists have switched that to some idiotic claim it is based upon the size of a stick they claim a man could legally hit his wife with. Something that clearly has no rel…
/r/MensRights07/07/25 04:03 AM
1

Absolutely right on “Men’s Sheds”. I love the way that feminist try to say it’s alright because “a woman” started. It is true that it was a woman seeking to help her father was perhaps the most significant individual in getting it started. But we should note whilst she was instrumental in starting and promoting it initially, she didn’t seek to attend it. That would have run contrary to what she was helping to create. It would be like a man helping to establish a self help group for women sufferi…
/r/MensRights07/07/25 01:56 AM
1

Quite.
/r/MensRights04/07/25 06:36 AM
3

According to the article it was all in a “ten minute tirade”. She’d have to have said it every 3 seconds.
/r/MensRights03/07/25 05:18 AM
1

Yes that’s really something. They claimed her “tirade” went on for 10 minutes. That’s saying it every 3 SECONDS.
/r/MensRights03/07/25 05:16 AM
2

Won’t help if some crazy woman in a store does this though.
/r/MensRights03/07/25 04:31 AM
41

The woman you’re supporting is calling for men to be banned from childcare. So quit.
/r/MensRights03/07/25 03:23 AM
6

Quite. It’s pretty easy to say no woman is convicted of such a crime when they’re not charged when found out. I’d be cautious about a man working in childcare simply because such work does attract predators, for obvious reasons. And the poor pay and quizzical looks they get would put most men off. This is now spreading everywhere. Even to primary school teachers. And feminists are on the one hand moaning women are stuck with the role, and on the other banning and demonising men who will do it.
/r/MensRights03/07/25 03:21 AM
10

I know that people don’t want to hear it, but I get your point. The point about pedophiles is that they are drawn to roles that give them access to children, or are positions of trust which will make people not question them being around children. So I can see why people would be cautious about a man drawn to working with young children since it’s still seen as a “woman thing”. However we are, once again, in the no win situation. Feminists will moan and claim that “men won’t step up”; that women…
/r/MensRights03/07/25 03:05 AM
50

So quit already. You’re a potential abuser according to this woman you’re defending.
/r/MensRights03/07/25 02:46 AM
3

Oh come now. Biden was not thought that well of. You just liked him because he wasn’t Trump. I used to see T-Shirts of Biden as a bumbling guy who barely knew what day it was. And that’s pretty clearly what he was which is why the ditched him when it was obvious the couldn’t deny it anymore. Are there people in the US who’d be better than Biden, Trump or Harris? Almost certainly yes. But sadly they weren’t in the running.
/r/MensRights02/07/25 02:26 AM
2

I thought it was pretty obvious that this has been happening, and happening for a very long time. And kids are certainly very aware of it. And it’s getting very bad now. That Brauer College “incident” is the norm, not an aberration (the “aberration” is that it got media coverage when forced her to pretend to apologise). Teens a fully aware of this. What’s sad isn’t their awareness of it. It’s the fact our feminist friends and their enablers seek to impose this on school children.
/r/MensRights02/07/25 02:22 AM
4

“Unhelpful rhetoric”??? What weasel words. When I hear stuff like “unhelpful” and “problematic” from people like this I just know they’re not willing to discuss things in good faith.
/r/MensRights02/07/25 02:06 AM
3

If there was ever a need for it, it’s long since passed. And if feminists are claiming it hasn’t worked, then surely like AA, running an unsuccessful program for half a century surely suggests it’s an utter failure and should be abandoned. Which is it feminists?
/r/MensRights02/07/25 01:52 AM
10

What should be obvious flies over the heads of our “decision makers”. Whatever social pressures that restricted girls 50 years ago (and I’ve no doubt they’re greatly exaggerated now - I’ve seen feminists try to claim women had “few options” other than to become trad wives in…2003) is not something teenaged boys have ever experienced. How can a 15 year old be “upset” over “lost privilege” when he didn’t live through this era? These assertions make no sense at all. Yet feminists and their enablers…
/r/MensRights02/07/25 01:50 AM
2

I think the feminist influence is pretty clear in those results.
/r/MensRights01/07/25 07:41 AM
7

I’ve seen that occasionally too. Except so many of those “manspreading” pictures were of people sitting normally, and within the dimensions of the seat they were on.
/r/MensRights01/07/25 07:19 AM
6

Who knows. “Progressives” hope to import a voting base. That’s clearly not going to work out for them longer term. But it could still work in the medium term. Cr@pping all over men isn’t going to help though.
/r/MensRights01/07/25 06:56 AM
3

Incompetence? No it’s design. Remember the golden rule of feminism: it’s OK when women do it.
/r/MensRights01/07/25 06:30 AM
8

The fate of Movember is a classic example of how feminism operates to the detriment of men. Movember was founded to promote men’s health. Specifically prostate cancer, but got extended to testicular cancer and mental health. And yet last year they decided to “partner” with the Department of Social Services to “reduce” “gendered violence” with their “healthy masculinities” BS. And they’ve assigned a fair chunk of the money they’ve raised to part fund a Government Project!!!! I was shocked when I …
/r/MensRights01/07/25 06:22 AM
6

They certainly mean this sub. Adolescence writer Thorne claimed in his “research” he visited “Incel subs” on 4Chan and Reddit. Given Reddit banned the Incel subs years ago (long before he started his “research”) guess which sub he perused with his prejudiced eyes???? They’re clearly gunning for this sub. The idea is that it’s spaces like this that are making men think they’re being discriminated against, and that feminism is prejudiced against them. And that if they could only shut this all down…
/r/MensRights01/07/25 05:51 AM
3

Absolutely this!
/r/MensRights01/07/25 05:46 AM
20

What’s ridiculous is that feminists can’t grasp that the boys in schools are going to notice this stuff. And they’re going to see they’re being sold garbage when told how “privileged” they are and how “downtrodden” the girls are. It’s going to make those offering a different message on this look very attractive.
/r/MensRights01/07/25 05:41 AM
16

True. Although the smallpox vaccine was developed in the late 18th century and it was eradicated in Europe a century before the UN was founded. So it was already well known how to achieve this. They just facilitated the availability of the vaccine.
/r/MensRights01/07/25 05:38 AM
6

To use a “Biblical analogy”: you reap what you sow. If you crap all over young boys throughout their school life. Remove positive male role models. Remove the influence of their fathers. Tell them they’re to blame for anything wrong and have to continually apologise to girls and “learn consent” and the rest of it. Have an education system biased against them but be told they’re “privileged” when they can see otherwise. And finally see that they are going to be discriminated against in the job ma…
/r/MensRights01/07/25 05:36 AM
19

Chances are that many of them haven’t. Either through their inclinations or repulsive personalities.
/r/MensRights01/07/25 02:48 AM
14

So the “manspreading” BS hasn’t died yet? And feminists used to try to brush it off claiming it was “a joke”. It obviously isn’t to many.
/r/MensRights01/07/25 02:47 AM
1

Do I really have to put (/s) everywhere? The feminist claim is that there’s apparently a women’s approach to physics or coding. Or that women have some special and different insight into the structural strength of concrete that means it’s imperative for there to be special quotas to make sure there’s these “female voices” in sufficient numbers (as they see it). Of course this doesn’t apply to men in psychology. Apparently men who are reluctant to talk to a woman about some issues are sexist. Of …
/r/MensRights30/06/25 08:29 AM
1

But what about all that “slacker perspective”???? I mean isn’t that what it’s all about? I mean Gender Studies “academics” wouldn’t mislead us would they? And they clearly know the secrets of business. I mean they tell us so, and that proves it doesn’t it????
/r/MensRights30/06/25 08:17 AM
1

But but but Apple earns more than your company does. And that can ONLY be because they “embrace diversity”, I mean selectively hiring women and whichever identity is defined as “diverse” must be why Apple earns more than you. I mean isn’t that what they tell us ALL THE TIME? Get a few women with “estrogen energy” and you’ll be a trillionaire in no time!!!
/r/MensRights30/06/25 08:11 AM
3

Oh rot. Women entered the workforce. They push banks to base mortgage approvals on joint income, which they ultimately do. Which then means that they can borrow more and outbid those on single incomes. It’s how things go. And the return of inflation is a DIRECT consequence of our friendly governments just spending out of control, cutting interest rates to unbelievably low levels and using “quantitative easing” (called printing money in the past) and then wondering why we get inflation - when it’…
/r/MensRights30/06/25 01:24 AM
3

Gay men? Absolutely. There are plenty of guys like this on this sub. But the problem is that so many gay activist groups seem to still be wedded to the “feminist alliance”. I suspect part of it is that many organisers and activists continue to fight yesterday’s battles. But from what I can see, feminists are slowly turning on gay guys - not that their “support” was that big anyway. I don’t see why gay men being victimised by “#Metoo” allegations, for example, isn’t something gay activist groups …
/r/MensRights26/06/25 06:30 AM
1

I don’t blame them one bit. I know The Court, the original (and probably still the only) gay bar in Perth was packed with straight girls for that reason. And then they think it’s a great joke to drag their boyfriends there. So suddenly it’s not truly a gay bar anymore. The whole point of a gay bar is that a gay guy can reasonably assume any male there is also same sex attracted and isn’t going to get freaked out violent if they interact with them, or hit on them. So they’ve been turned into an e…
/r/MensRights26/06/25 03:37 AM
8

I look forward to the day when gay activists realise that feminist’s anti-male, pro-female polices actually hurts gay men. And that they’re just being exploited by feminists. I get the impression that day is coming fast.
/r/MensRights26/06/25 02:28 AM
11

So why are you accusing this sub of hating of gay guys?
/r/MensRights26/06/25 02:24 AM
7

What’s that got to do with it? Places that still execute gay men are non-western countries. Iran hangs them from tower cranes (which The Handmaid’s Tale has now trying to make out as something that happens to women, not men). And the issue here is the anti-male discrimination. Believe or not, gay men are, MEN - incredible isn’t it!
/r/MensRights26/06/25 02:23 AM
11

The OP seems to have a very prejudicial view of this sub. Very much if you think that men are increasingly being discriminated against you must: hate women; hate anyone who isn’t of Northern European descent; hate Jews; hate Arabs and Muslims; hate black people; be a member of the KKK; be a neo-Nazi; hate gay people; and above all, hate women. Why? Well it gives them an excuse to hate us and ignore anything we have to say, and not question their own bigoted ideology.
/r/MensRights26/06/25 02:19 AM
7

Your “ideology of this sub”???? I have an issue with some gay activists. These are the guys who are either still fighting battles they won decades ago, or simply overvalue the “feminist alliance” to the point they lend support to feminist anti-male campaigns because they a) think they’ll be exempt; b) assume those who are hurt by them will only be their “homophobic enemies”; c) assume feminists will always back gay activism as a quid pro quo; d) assume they’ll get a few crumbs from the feminist …
/r/MensRights26/06/25 02:12 AM
2

It’s at least partially feminism’s fault that this isn’t affordable to many now.
/r/MensRights26/06/25 01:09 AM
1

Male only? Or gay only after a pride march?
/r/MensRights26/06/25 01:03 AM
2

Correction: it’s the worst aspects of female nature politicised.
/r/MensRights26/06/25 12:52 AM
5

Oh but sex based discrimination is just fine if you apply it to men. Look at the UNSW and their “STEM entrance” requirements mandating women be admitted with 10% lower scores than male applicants. Or BHP’s “women only” job ads. Both contrary to anti-discrimination legislation. And yet both just fine according to the “equal opportunity” gate keepers. The University of NSW at least applied for an exemption. But I’ve yet to see any institution apply for the same thing to boost male enrolments in an…
/r/MensRights25/06/25 06:03 AM
6

The DV industry is totally under the control of feminists. They use it as a source of income and sinecures for themselves, and use it to try to enforce changes to society which have a marginal at best relationship to DV. Which is surely why they constantly claim against all evidence that DV is “caused” by “women’s inferior status” and is committed to “keep women in their place”. Hence more women CEO’s and more women in Parliament is supposedly going to “solve” domestic violence. Of course the li…
/r/MensRights25/06/25 05:48 AM
9

Well they can thank feminists for that, at least in part.
/r/MensRights25/06/25 05:35 AM
5

Feminists? Intolerant? Impossible! They are the definition of open minded. They fight for EVERYONE’s rights (unless they’re contaminated by testosterone). Why else would following the feminist script be called “diversity” and “inclusion” if it didn’t “prove” how feminists are the very definition of tolerant!!!! Only intolerant people could possibly think that. And they’re obviously intolerant because feminists say so. I mean what better proof does anyone need! (/s in case anyone wondered)
/r/MensRights25/06/25 05:32 AM
4

He said she should be in the kitchen.
/r/MensRights25/06/25 01:16 AM
6

She imagined she was “drawing attention” to how men who commit these crimes are “excused”. Except I have NEVER heard anyone make such excuses for a man who committed such a crime. I do recall a woman who burned her husband alive in a similar manner (he ultimately died), and she too claimed he “dared her to do it”.
/r/MensRights25/06/25 01:13 AM
3

That’s not what I meant. The problem with men is that, thanks to feminists and those who seek to please them, or use them and their debased form of leftism as “cover”, is that discrimination against men in the workplace is now official and institutionalised - the very thing feminists say they’re against. So this is worse because of the scale and it being official policy. It doesn’t mean I don’t care if I see someone else get treated badly at work though.
/r/MensRights24/06/25 04:07 AM
1

Oh yes. That term sort of sums feminism up in a nutshell. They take a sliver of truth, and stretch it beyond breaking point, and then add loads of doubtful (but self serving) claims on top of it, and act as if it’s all totally beyond doubt and you’re a “misogynist” if you do. And then they demand total submission to “atone” for their “truth” which is so bent out of shape it doesn’t have much in common with reality.
/r/MensRights24/06/25 01:52 AM
5

It’s a bit much to claim rape is “just perception”. Yes they’ve “broadened” the meaning to a ridiculous level. But actual rape (as opposed to the Feminist/Koss version) is a true violent crime.
/r/MensRights24/06/25 01:21 AM
1

Not sure what you imagine will be said about it. Some here are veterans. But many (most) would not be. Only someone who’s been through it can really give an opinion that worth paying attention to.
/r/MensRights23/06/25 08:17 AM
8

It depends on the issue. Some are worth supporting. Made up garbage like “manspreading” and “mansplaining” clearly aren’t. Nor are things like “boosting women in STEM” when it’s a one way street and ultimately a path to actual institutionalised discrimination. Knock that sort of thing out of the equation, you take away about 90% of feminist moans. However there may be stuff worth supporting in the 10% residue. For example Sarah Everett. That’s a law and order issue, and a police corruption issue…
/r/MensRights23/06/25 06:53 AM
-6

Gold digger? I’d say no. But no one would have heard of her, or be interested in her utterances if she wasn’t married to an ex-President.
/r/MensRights21/06/25 12:44 PM
2

So you’re back to the 63% claim again. The House of Lords is not an elected chamber. It’s part hereditary, but mostly appointed. And whilst its members are able to become Ministers and they can initiate legislation, they have virtually no legislative powers. The House of Commons can not simply override them, but ignore them completely. They’re not the US Senate. And the fact it’s mostly appointees (ex-politicians and those who’ve achieved renown in certain areas) is why there’s so many of them. …
/r/MensRights19/06/25 12:55 AM
86

Ah yes, the “power plus prejudice” excuse. This “logic” would insist that women have no power even if women comprised every single decision making position because they’d claim that it was “set up by men, and for men” and hence women have no power in a “male system”. So they’re free to act in the ways they condemn in others.
/r/MensRights18/06/25 07:07 AM
15

That’s bizarre. Women like sex too. I dare say she’d be outraged at her “logic” being applied to women!
/r/MensRights18/06/25 07:03 AM
3

Good long ways? Women are 46% of the ruling Party’s MPs. They’re about 40.5% of the House of Commons. That’s already meeting the ALP’s “quota”.
/r/MensRights18/06/25 04:54 AM
4

I get the impression you’re an American. In the US, women are 26% of US Senators and 29% of the House of Representatives. This is the standard thing that feminists cite to claim they’re not institutionalising discrimination and to claim women are still “oppressed.” But as you’ve proven, the figures are very different in Britain. In Australia the total membership of Federal Parliament (House of Representatives and Senate) are 112 women and 114 men. And for the Governing Labor Party (ALP), 55% of …
/r/MensRights18/06/25 04:36 AM
2

Lie? The Old Testament is roughly congruent with what we know about the ancient near east. Potiphor’s wife doesn’t require any supernatural or divine intervention, and is quite believable. And how “religious” were you (assuming you mean “Christian”) if you haven’t heard the story of Joseph? He was the last of the Patriarchs (ironic isn’t it). In any event there are plenty of examples of women who’ve killed men for slighting them! It’s even entered the level of cliche: “hell hath no fury like a w…
/r/MensRights17/06/25 09:03 AM
1

You came here to defend/support those “strikers” in Switzerland, and accused the OP (indeed everyone in this sub) of seeking to “diminish” women’s rights and claiming that the feminists (the protesters? The feminist subs? Big name feminists?) “were right”. Apart from the Palestinian protest, all those in the pictures were demonising men in general. Or doing what we in Australia (and Britain) would call “whinging”, and blaming men. I mean “cooking”? Moaning that the Miele ad has a woman in it (le…
/r/MensRights17/06/25 08:54 AM
2

And a matriarchy does NOT have equality. What a bizarre statement that men are “equal” when everything is run by women. You don’t say that about our society even though there is very clear legal equality: indeed laws often favour women as laws for equal opportunity are often bypassed to favour women (such as BHP running women only job ads).
/r/MensRights17/06/25 08:45 AM
1

Yes they had goddesses. But so did the ancient Athenians. And Athens was no oasis of “equality”. Medieval Europe was more equal in many ways. Wealthy widows help prominent decision making positions that would have been unthinkable in classical Greece. Remember they called Sparta a gynoclastia.
/r/MensRights17/06/25 08:42 AM
5

Who, exactly, is forcing women to “sell” or “give away” their menstrual blood? And seriously why wouldn’t anyone consider someone else’s used pad “gross”?
/r/MensRights17/06/25 07:18 AM
2

You asked for “famous examples”. Well the Joseph story is VERY famous. Way more famous than any story of a man killing a woman for rejecting him. And I gave you an example of one from 2021 where a woman shot a man dead for not kissing her - which was famous enough in its own time and place. There’s plenty of others if you want to look for them.
/r/MensRights17/06/25 06:38 AM
1

Well that’s the group of women “protesting” in Switzerland you’ve just supported. Placards about abortion and saying men have zero rights to even an opinion on the matter. Is this even an actual issue in Swiss politics? Roe v Wade and various US states have zero authority on Swiss law.
/r/MensRights17/06/25 06:35 AM
6

I don’t agree. The House of Lords has very little legislative power, as you well know. They cannot actually vote out legislation, at most they can delay it by a year. If you don’t include Local Authorities, you shouldn’t really count them. So removing the House of Lords (which conveniently for you has the largest number of nominal members) you have 530 men and 374 women with men being 58.6% of the total. Which falls short of your “supermajority”. Plus Labour backbenchers have way more power than…
/r/MensRights17/06/25 06:19 AM
1

Feminists don’t seem to be able to. Which is why feminism seems to be at least as much about hating men as it is about “women’s rights”. And what were they talking about with abortion anyway? Do they want abortion on demand stretched out to 6 months (or 9 months like Canada)? Or are they just repeating US talking points which don’t actually apply to Switzerland?
/r/MensRights17/06/25 04:50 AM
1

It’s “filler feminism”. They use the fact we DON’T KNOW as an excuse to claim it to be whatever they want it to be. These are the same people who are quite misleading about the recent past after all. A couple of years back I saw them claiming women had “few choices” other than marriage and relying on a man in the dark days of, 2003! This was asserted to by a woman who claimed to be in her 50’s and who thus should have known better. They even misled about the present state of things (cough “wage …
/r/MensRights17/06/25 04:46 AM
2

“Pre-patriarchal societies”? “Gender views of Sumerians and Babylonians”? What are you on about? The Sumerians and Babylonians would hardly be seen as “gender equal” by modern women. Far less so than the Egyptians were. And as for 7000 to 3000BC. Well, it’s easy to make up stuff about pre-literate societies isn’t it! The fact they had goddesses doesn’t really mean much. The Ancient Greeks had a lot of goddesses: Athena, Hera, Artemis; Aphrodite; Hesta; Demeter and numerous lesser deities. Yet th…
/r/MensRights17/06/25 04:12 AM
1

It’s Switzerland, not the USA. Roe v Wade never had any legal standing in Switzerland, and neither does its repeal. And the woman moaning about cooking? What’s that about? Don’t cook if you don’t like it! You can eat out or have take away. Not good for money or possibly health. But that’s a choice you make. I cook, and I don’t feel “exploited” because I do so. How pathetic.
/r/MensRights17/06/25 03:43 AM
3

What I find hilarious is that so many of these signs are in English, which isn’t even one of Switzerland’s official languages!
/r/MensRights17/06/25 03:39 AM
2

A few in those pictures are not white women - presumably they’re trying to “assimilate” into the local culture!!!
/r/MensRights17/06/25 03:38 AM
2

I’ll bite: Joseph and Potiphar’s wife? Ok he wasn’t killed, but he certainly could have been. And if you want a “less Biblical” example: how about Claudia Resendiz-Flores? She killed a man who refused to kiss her (https://www.newsweek.com/woman-kills-man-refusing-kiss-her-kissing-his-girlfriend-instead-prosecutors-1639680). There’s plenty of other examples if you want to look for them. And as for “slut-shaming”. There’s plenty of “virgin shaming” of men by women in social media, which is roughly…
/r/MensRights17/06/25 03:34 AM
2

I think that’s the point: it’s ok when they do it.
/r/MensRights17/06/25 03:08 AM
2

“Jews for Hitler”?
/r/MensRights17/06/25 03:07 AM
2

Well said.
/r/MensRights17/06/25 03:06 AM
3

Periods are the “cleanest part of women”? Oh come now. If it’s that “clean” why do women need absorbent items such they throw out as soon as possible? Saying that a used tampon or pad is disgusting is not the same as claiming a woman is “unclean” during that time of the month. As others have said, there’s plenty of other body secretions. Wanting to “display” them or claiming there’s something “wrong” with someone wanting to not contact another person’s bodily secretions is very weird.
/r/MensRights17/06/25 03:05 AM
2

It varied greatly from group to group.
/r/MensRights17/06/25 02:37 AM
4

Gender equal???? Come on man. That’s a feminist fantasy. Some were matriarchies. Some were “sort of” gender neutral, although men and women had fairly distinct roles, they didn’t necessarily have different status within the group. Others were VERY male dominated. It’s the feminists who invented the idea of this “utopia” that existed pre-agriculture. There’s little evidence one way or another. What we can say is that amongst “indigenous groups” there were certainly plenty who certainly saw women …
/r/MensRights17/06/25 02:36 AM
3

I get the impression English isn’t your first language, because the question doesn’t make a lot of sense. What I suspect you meant to ask was this: Are the rights of gay men included in men’s rights? The answer for the most part is yes. Gay men face most of the same issues non-gay men face. The only two I can think of that may not apply to gay guys are “diversity” (but you have to very publicly wear that badge, and many “proud, diverse employers” keep stats on women and certain races but not on …
/r/MensRights17/06/25 01:44 AM
10

Overwhelming majority of legislators? Labour has the majority in Parliament, and 46% of their Members of Parliament (MP’s) are women. Almost certainly feminists of some stripe. I’d hardly say the 54% is an “overwhelming majority”. Perhaps you need to rethink your mentality.
/r/MensRights17/06/25 01:07 AM
30

If only there was a day that the importance of mothers was recognised????
/r/MensRights16/06/25 07:35 AM
8

Absolutely. But we have to stay out of their spaces, and there are repeated proposals to set up women only railway carriages. It’s standard anything we have must be open to them, but it’s not only acceptable but actually a positive good for their stuff to be exclusive. I’m sick of it, and it’s impossible to respect people with this mindset who then claim to be about “equality”.
/r/MensRights11/06/25 05:10 AM
12

They airbrush the autism. You see they claim to be “supportive” of “the disabled” a category with which they include the “neurodiverse”. But they despise “incels” which is just another word for “misogynist” to them. So what they do is ignore the “link” between autism and incels, or autism and “creepy man”. Most incels are autistic. But those on the spectrum are disproportionately represented in that online community. But if they were to admit that, it would mean approaching they’d have to approa…
/r/MensRights10/06/25 04:46 AM
1

My suspicion is that for the “left” of politics (or what passes for it anyway), they’re basically supportive of the rioters, so they seem to be denying that it’s a riot at all. It’s “mostly peaceful” like other rallies they backed a few years back. Of course when they don’t back the cause, it’s a riot, or an “insurrection”! Of course later, if they’re a talk about violent crimes, it will be “violent men” joining the “mostly peaceful protests”. It would be interesting to hear if Trump and his sup…
/r/MensRights10/06/25 04:40 AM
2

For all their talk, they ditched that “campaign” pretty quickly. They should have ditched the idiot CEO who thought it was a “great idea”.
/r/MensRights09/06/25 08:36 AM
1

You forgot the level of “make work” that’s been “created” to provide job opportunities for these women. All these “diversity officers”; all this workplace change stuff. I’ve no doubt that a degree in “Gender Studies” would be “very useful” for these “essential roles”!
/r/MensRights09/06/25 01:51 AM
3

The hotel, and the police did apply even application of the law. It remains to be seen if the Courts do. I’m not hopeful. On the other hand, she’s Irish, and not Spanish. So possibly Spanish feminists will be happy to throw a foreigner under the bus rather than expose themselves.
/r/MensRights06/06/25 04:34 AM
3

The show is a work of fiction being presented as factual. “Jamie” is not a real person. Not even “sort of” based on one. The two crimes Graham cited as “inspiring” the show have perpetrators that don’t really match the “Jamie” character. And whilst the murdered girl was shown to have plastered “incel emojis” on his instagram posts, they did represent Jamie as having spent loads of time “online”. What is more, her bullying stemmed from his attempt to exploit her humiliation into getting her to go…
/r/MensRights06/06/25 04:28 AM
18

I loved the way the author of the article claimed it was about “dispossessed boys” being “radicalised into femicide”. Typical leftie/progressive talk. How was “Jamie” dispossessed? He lived at home. His father was in the house, and worked hard for a living. He wasn’t particularly estranged from them. And there was not the slightest indication that there was any maltreatment of boys in general by the education system. Just a vague notion of school being dysfunctional, with teachers burnt out and …
/r/MensRights06/06/25 03:44 AM
22

Couldn’t agree more with the last one. And it’s amazing how hostile they become when you mention to them that it’s fictional tale!!!
/r/MensRights06/06/25 02:18 AM
2

Good news regarding the Hotel staff and the Spanish Police (at least in that place).
/r/MensRights06/06/25 02:02 AM
8

Let’s see how the Court deals with it. I hope Spain’s feminists haven’t ensured a one sided application of laws as they have in other countries.
/r/MensRights06/06/25 01:59 AM
2

Oh well. At least they understand the source of the problem now!
/r/MensRights05/06/25 02:10 AM
12

Ah yes. A lesbian who wants all women to be lesbian. She doesn’t have a combination of “projection” and “ulterior motive” at all does she!
/r/MensRights04/06/25 10:39 AM
2

But what defines an incel? Is “incel” another word for “misogynist”? Feminists like to think so, with “loser” attached too. Incels arean “online community”. And it is one thing that is certainly determined by self identification.
/r/MensRights04/06/25 10:36 AM
3

As for “social awkwardness”. I strongly suspected that’s where most incels originate. And why autism is disproportionately prevalent. It’s easy for awkwardness to appear as “creepy” to women. I’m not sure what socially awkward women experience.
/r/MensRights04/06/25 08:22 AM
2

It’s not “rage bait”. There’s plenty of women with those attitudes. And social media helps to cement them. But the biggest issue is the “rise” of “online dating” at the expense of meeting people in real life. I think it’s now the case that most romantic connection (whether relationships or “hookups”) are made via these sites (it was a few years ago, although COVID no doubt affected things). Online dating is sold as expanding your dating pool. But this neglects the issues with it. Firstly men ten…
/r/MensRights04/06/25 08:14 AM
5

Ok, I’ll bite. What led you into that community in the first place and how did you emerge? Did you find a gf? Or did you rather look at what you could do to help make yourself more attractive to women instead of stewing about how they ignore you? Or did you simply decide to live your best life regardless of female interest? I can conceive of many paths into and out of the “Incel community”. And I’d be curious as what your experience was.
/r/MensRights04/06/25 06:52 AM
13

Love the way they then screech “racist” without any degree of self awareness.
/r/MensRights04/06/25 12:33 AM
2

For the last time - I AM specifically talking about feminists rather than women. The issue I’ve pointed out is what was the rationale for feminism once women had equality before the law (conscription apart), and were accepted in the professions, and could continue in the workforce post motherhood without being seen as some sort of oddity? Feminism didn’t just fade away when this was achieved. Which shows that for feminist activists this stuff wasn’t really the ultimate aim anyway.
/r/MensRights03/06/25 01:20 AM
1

Unfortunately that’s how it goes. And the longer you leave dealing with it, typically the harsher cuts tend to be. I’m not trying to defend DOGE, certainly not the way it goes about things, or the things they specifically cut (in part because I don’t believe I know enough about it), but people need to understand that something like this is going to come eventually one way or another.
/r/MensRights03/06/25 01:15 AM
2

I am talking about feminists, and I DO differentiate between “feminists” and “women”. However feminists do have a lot of malign influence on politics and on young and impressionable girls.
/r/MensRights03/06/25 12:29 AM
1

What about the whole Lhamon/Title IX denials of natural justice? Trump’s (female) appointee ended it and restored actual fair process to what was little more than a kangaroo court procedure. And when Biden became President? Back comes Lhamon, and back comes the kangaroo court process.
/r/MensRights01/06/25 09:33 AM
1

The problem is that “woke” and associated ideologies have so permeated all forms of politics is that it takes a true outsider who isn’t beholden to any of them to shake things up. Trump has loads of money, an enormous ego and the hide of a rhinoceros. That gives him the unique ability to be “the one”. He’s far from ideal, and he’s drawbacks are quite obvious. But he’s about all there is. Perhaps if more “mainstream” political leaders hadn’t ruled certain things “out of bounds” Trump would never …
/r/MensRights01/06/25 09:29 AM
1

I am not going to support anything that DOGE does. But I would remind everyone that blind Freddy can see the Federal Government can’t just continue to overspend like this. If you want to know why inflation jumped the way it did, it’s the overspending that’s at the core of it. Sooner or later the money’s going to run out. If not dramatic cuts, it will be hyperinflation like Germany in the early 1920’s or parts of Latin America.
/r/MensRights01/06/25 09:23 AM
1

I think you’re probably right about Trump.
/r/MensRights01/06/25 09:20 AM
1

And if she decides to not have an abortion?????
/r/MensRights01/06/25 09:15 AM
3

If it had stayed when women were accepted as working in major professions and boring able continue working after they’d had children (which was essentially won by the mid ‘80’s) you’d be right. But they didn’t stop then did they! And what they insisted on doing beyond this is certainly pushing us to civilisational collapse. It’s not the only factor. But it has a major influence on the other ones too.
/r/MensRights01/06/25 09:11 AM
10

You give them too much credit. It isn’t the era of Coverture. Women have had the vote for over a century now (longer in Australia). And women being the in the workforce, being in all professions is now commonplace. In fact it’s had profound effects, not only in changing childrearing and creating a new service industry of childcare centres (they were far less prevalent in the past), but in inflating house prices to the point where you need two really good incomes to pay for a house a single perso…
/r/MensRights01/06/25 09:07 AM
1

Well Krudd’s crew backed off on it and let it wither. I don’t think they formally withdrew it, as opposed to just not mentioning the idea any more. Gillard, who was widely suspected of being a man hater, didn’t revive it when she ousted Krudd and took over, although her less than stellar electoral performance would have undermined her authority to push such things. So at the moment it isn’t a legal issue to rebel against - there are others of course, too many to mention here. The point is though…
/r/MensRights30/05/25 08:15 AM
7

Indeed it is. Plenty of “feminist academics” are “political lesbians” who have an alarming tendency to view all “PIV sex” as rape. They certainly see pregnancy and birth as obstacles to women’s “rewarding careers” (most people don’t have “rewarding, enriching careers” as opposed to jobs which provide the money they need to live). It’s rare for big name feminists to have actually had children of their own: only Friedan and Wolf spring to mind was prominent feminists with kids - Clementine Ford fa…
/r/MensRights30/05/25 04:41 AM
3

Ah yes, “coercive control”. This is clearly something women do as much as men do. You can’t hide behind the “men are physically stronger” line on this one. But our good friends the feminists have ensured that the police are briefed and educated to “understand” this is something that happens to women, and is not committed by them!
/r/MensRights30/05/25 02:57 AM
7

Kevin Rudd’s (Krudd) Government was actually proposing to legislate exactly that. Basically if you had a “long term relationship” (been dating for a couple of years, but not actually living together) she’d have a claim on your assets and income if things went south. They backed off on it, but the idea is floating around. And a Court in Canada has already held it to hold there at least.
/r/MensRights30/05/25 02:54 AM
5

It’s shocking how far Spain has fallen.
/r/MensRights30/05/25 02:04 AM
1

Ah that’s a “unique” issue with Australia. Australia has a federal structure like the US, Germany etc, in which the individual colonies (which already had their own elected Parliaments and governments) joined together in a Federal structure. DV laws are basically the responsibility of the States. However the Feds like to stick their noses in to State responsibilities, to the point of setting up Federal Departments which actually don’t manage the things they say they do, but are in charge of funn…
/r/MensRights30/05/25 02:02 AM
12

Falling birthrates are an intended consequence of feminism.
/r/MensRights30/05/25 12:39 AM
13

Of course they did. The only way to pretend it’s all justified is to ignore the problems, and then act as if things like Bondi Junction are “domestic violence” so they can create alarm. Hint: Bondi Junction was mass murder but definitely NOT DV! The killer was an untreated schizophrenic; and his victims were all perfect strangers.
/r/MensRights30/05/25 12:38 AM
13

Oh “hate speech” is clearly speech they “hate”.
/r/MensRights29/05/25 01:19 AM
1

Oh there are “femcels” (women who feel men don’t want them). Some go for self improvement and support. Others become resentful like many Incels, but they are more likely to populate feminist subs rather than specialist femcel subs (FDS apart).
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 07:51 AM
1

What you decide are “femcels” are not the female equivalent of male Incels. They’re actually the female equivalent of MGTOW rather than Incels. Incels are resentful they don’t have meaningful relationships with women (involuntary celibate is how they define themselves). Too many confuse “Incel” with “misogynist”. Whilst many Incel chat rooms may say misogynistic things, they are not the same thing.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 07:49 AM
1

Perhaps you are on the wrong subs. I’ve seen plenty of women essentially claim that all men are culpable for such vile crimes as the murder of Sarah Everard (they made similar assertions about the Eurydice Dixon murder in Melbourne some years earlier). And this was open in the mainstream media too, not just Reddit subs. There is also a tendency for some women to excuse this too: “misandry annoys; misogyny kills” or some variation on that. And considering the numbers who spend their lives online …
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 07:25 AM
1

Choose better? That’s reasonable surely. I know quite a few women personally who are attracted to “dangerous” men. And I’m sure plenty of women are aghast at some of the women I’ve been attracted to. In fact I know it for a fact! What isn’t acceptable is to say a woman somehow “deserved it” or was “asking for it” when they’re assaulted or mistreated by one of these thugs.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 07:19 AM
1

And if they give you an example, you’ll just dismiss it the same way you did that “Some girl on TikTok saying something”.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 06:55 AM
1

Suzanna Danuta Walters? Or isn’t The Washington Post mainstream enough for you? How about the responses to the murder of Sarah Everard?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 06:52 AM
1

The Duluth Model is not “optional”. It’s compelled in most places where it’s in operation. And it’s based on a purely feminist supposition as to the cause of DV - women’s status.
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 06:50 AM
1

Were you asleep during the #Metoo frenzy?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 06:02 AM
1

What does that have to do with it?
/r/PurplePillDebate28/05/25 06:00 AM
5

Feminism is “real good” I suppose. According to this clown, “red pill” is 2 podcasters. Perhaps he should look at Suzanna Danuta Walters (she’s actually a tenured academic innovator Gender Studies, which surely is more official than two random Yotubers) and Gearhart. This proves that feminism is irredeemably bad, right? Except that for feminists there are plenty of other examples.
/r/MensRights28/05/25 05:56 AM
2

You mean back in 2021? Back then it was assumed the draft would never be activated. So extending SS to women was purely nominal and answer the obvious questions about legal equality SS raises. Then came the Ukrainian War. Suddenly the draft looks far more likely doesn’t it. I dare say many of those who supported it back in 2021 will suddenly have found their views have “evolved”.
/r/MensRights28/05/25 05:10 AM
0

The idea it “doesn’t require physical strength” is a conceit from people who imagine it’s all “push button”. An infantryman’s pack is at a minimum 32kg, and frequently over 55kg. And a soldier carries this all day. Even for artillery, a 105mm shell weighs the order of 16kg. A gunner is going to have to manhandle these continuously during a barrage. There are women who can handle such weights. But they’re fewer in number.
/r/MensRights28/05/25 04:10 AM
7

In their defence, there’s frequently something “off” with “male feminists”.
/r/MensRights28/05/25 01:42 AM
15

Exactly. “Incel” is also just a general slur to throw at someone who speaks against whatever feminist conceit is “in” at the moment too.
/r/MensRights28/05/25 01:41 AM
1

They were heading that way under Biden. The game changer was the Ukraine War. Ironically Trump is probably less inclined to intervene abroad. The key point is that the powers that be now believe that the armed forces need to be enlarged. Britain got rid of National Service in 1960, part of the “retreat” after Suez. But other European countries got rid of conscription after the fall of the Soviet Union. Basically they believed they didn’t need truly big Armies anymore. But that calculation was ba…
/r/MensRights27/05/25 09:07 AM
4

Ok. The 0.08/0.05 thresholds were introduced purely so there was a measurable threshold the police could check and enforce. I would like to think 0.08 was based on a real study on changes in driving competence, but since it tracks well with the BAC you’d get from drinking 2 pints of full strength beer, I have a suspicion this is what it was based on. The 0.05 limit was based more on politicians saying how they were going to crack down on DUI, rounding down to the nearest 5! For Americans, in Aus…
/r/MensRights27/05/25 07:25 AM
3

Oh the Teals. Those who are “so concerned” about emissions they don’t even put solar panels on their own houses. Rules for thee but not for me! I’ve noticed they’re all women. I suspect they’re all feminists too.
/r/MensRights27/05/25 05:50 AM
4

The 0.05% figure used in Australia is arbitrary - it was 0.08%. And it is not the definition of “intoxication”. It is a threshold to determine someone’s fitness to operate a motor vehicle. In the mining/resources industry, the restriction is 0.00%. Which do you propose? But bear in mind these are both based on operating equipment. They are not set by any threshold of “drunk and disorderly”.
/r/MensRights27/05/25 05:47 AM
2

Actually I agree with you. I struggle to think of a prominent post war feminist who’s actually had children. Betty Friedan and Naomi Wolf are about the only ones I can think of. Steinem, Greer, Dworkin, Bel Hooks, Roxanne Gay don’t have children. And the political lesbians don’t have kids. Unfortunately Clementine Ford has a young son, whom I feel for given her venom - but she’s a well known rather than a prominent feminist. Given this it’s pretty clear that feminist “thinking” is heavily influe…
/r/MensRights27/05/25 05:34 AM
1

It didn’t end with the Algerian War though, did it. Compulsory national service continued until 1996, which was 34 years after Algerian independence. Algeria just happened to be the last time they were deployed to a war zone. France’s conflicts since then have been sufficiently low level to be managed by regular troops and the Foreign Legion. However they could have been, if the Government decided it were necessary. And as I’ve reminded those so dismissive about US “selective service” (men have …
/r/MensRights27/05/25 02:42 AM
2

Well fair enough, I guess. The key point here though is that feminism has taken over the left of politics, to the point that it is seen as synonymous. Hence opposition to feminism is now categorised as “far right”.
/r/MensRights27/05/25 02:29 AM
9

Borderline irresponsibly? You, like the author, seem to confuse drinking as a passenger with driving a vehicle. Driving a car requires a level of concentration and reflexes that alcohol will impair at lower levels than it requires to produce obnoxious behaviour.
/r/MensRights27/05/25 01:56 AM
32

And if anyone wonders how prohibition got up in the US, there’s the answer.
/r/MensRights27/05/25 01:49 AM
53

Exactly. It’s basically a glass of wine. And her “rule” for “staying under 0.05% (which is arbitrary anyway, it was 0.08 until politicians lowered it to show how tough they were on DUI) is the rule for women, not men. For men it’s 3 standard drinks in the first hour to bring you to “the limit” (just under actually) followed by one per hour. Also the DUI limit isn’t about “loud and aggressive behaviour” it’s about loss of reflexes and concentration which impairs operating a vehicle.
/r/MensRights27/05/25 01:48 AM
5

She won’t want upset “her people” will she.
/r/MensRights27/05/25 12:47 AM
8

The law may not be, but the drugs sure are.
/r/MensRights27/05/25 12:46 AM
5

I think he should be slipping them a commission as I’ve no doubt he’s picked up a lot of traffic because of the publicity they give him.
/r/MensRights26/05/25 07:38 AM
1

Two of those links refer to the same crime. And he was not held criminally responsible because he was a schizophrenic - which means he’ll almost certainly be permanently institutionalised - a pity they didn’t deal with him properly before he attacked that woman! In any case the issue isn’t that some crazy or evil person sets a man or a woman on fire (I can give you other examples of women who’ve set men on fire, and other women too, see here: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-28/dana-vulin-att…
/r/MensRights26/05/25 03:58 AM
1

1939? Your country stopped conscription when World War Two started? I presume you’re from Quebec. France itself had compulsory military service for all males until 1996; Belgium until the end of 1992; Switzerland still has it.
/r/MensRights26/05/25 03:36 AM
3

And plenty of women, especially now, don’t have children. Funnily enough many of the feminists raving about women having children have never had children themselves.
/r/MensRights26/05/25 03:31 AM
3

“Extreme right narrative”. That’s the issue in a nutshell. The left of politics is now so captured by feminism that any opposition to it or its daughter ideologies is now beyond the pale (which is “extreme right” in leftist speak).
/r/MensRights26/05/25 03:26 AM
20

He’s the goto excuse. And I wonder how many of those who bark on about him all the time have ever listened to any of his podcasts?
/r/MensRights26/05/25 01:35 AM
2

Why on earth are you bringing up Sarah Everett style crimes? Do you think they’re “supported” or “minimised” by posters here or something?
/r/MensRights26/05/25 12:50 AM
9

He wasn’t her boyfriend. They did not live together. And if she smashed him on the head with a chair or something for those comments, then maybe “he provoked her” may have something going for it. You don’t pour petrol on someone and light them up and get to claim that though.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 03:38 PM
11

Of course she doesn’t. She “just knows”. And this justifies those harpies apparently.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 03:35 PM
19

Men did what to women? Do tell.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 03:33 PM
20

He wasn’t her boyfriend. Her bf was actually asleep on the couch supposedly. And yes, many women are attracted to the bad boys, and yes they should perhaps reconsider why they’re attracted to scum. But hardly justifies scum seriously injuring or killing those women does it. I don’t know where you get the idea this sub somehow supports sever DV or the rape or murder of women. This woman poured 5 1/2 litres of petrol (~1.5 gallons of gasoline for Americans) on her “lifelong friend” and lit him up.…
/r/MensRights23/05/25 03:30 PM
22

Glad you think it’s funny.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 03:22 PM
18

Have a look above to see how feminists rationalise it.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 03:21 PM
28

Those women treat it as a joke though don’t they.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 03:20 PM
30

Oh let me guess. They’re not “real feminists”. Seriously, do you really think it’s a “joke” she set her supposed “lifelong friend” on fire?
/r/MensRights23/05/25 03:16 PM
3

Nonsense. If you’re the father of the child, you’re liable for child support. And in certain parts of the US the state will come after you if she tries to get state support. There are cases of men who are not the father who have to pay child support because the mother nominated them as the father on welfare application forms.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 02:09 PM
3

Actually the man is NO absolutely free to wrestle out of the arrangement. This is the so-called “paper abortion”. And there’s plenty of “pro-choice” feminists who are resolutely opposed to this.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 10:16 AM
3

Perhaps it’s because feminists deny it. Katherine Spiller even asserted that men have no legal disabilities compared to women. And she’s of the Vietnam generation and so should actually be aware of Selective Service. Perhaps you should consider what other “omissions” big name feminists make.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 10:14 AM
1

True. But she’s unlikely to serve more than 4.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 07:15 AM
1

She’s clearly got a short fuse. But if I were a betting man, I’d bet she’d still get parole. They’ll judge by whether she’s “likely to reoffend” and according to the ABC article (of course the ABC is ever more feminist these days) they’ve already decided she’s remorseful and is unlikely to reoffend.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 07:11 AM
1

It’s an almost certainty she’ll be out in 2029. She’d have to seriously misbehave in prison to be denied it.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 07:04 AM
2

Brain dead lady held as an incubator? You mean she’s pregnant and they’re keeping her on life support so that her child may live?
/r/MensRights23/05/25 03:13 AM
2

Conservatism? Good ol’ Bill sent US servicemen into conflict more than any previous President. And since when were FDR, JFK or LBJ “conservatives”? It’s a conceit that “left wing governments” don’t send armies off to war. They do all the time.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 03:11 AM
3

Wow. “If men don’t wanna be dads, use protection.” And you’re the same one just above who moaned about anti-abortion laws in many states (at least you’re not like some of those moaning about having their “right” to an abortion being removed when they live in a State that explicitly legalises it). Katherine Spillar basically says if you don’t want to be a father, keep it in your pants. How is that different from saying if you don’t want to be a mother, keep your legs together? Or “use protection”…
/r/MensRights23/05/25 03:09 AM
5

Oh “structural injustice” too. Weasel words to justify why well off and privileged women are somehow victims and need support over men from poorer and less well connected backgrounds. This “analysis” may apply to black American families. Their forbears being denied many jobs, finding it harder to set up successful businesses due to prejudice and discrimination does impact on the resources available to their descendants. And it no doubt contributes to the idea of education not being for “the like…
/r/MensRights23/05/25 01:47 AM
6

Which is something plenty of feminists are totally unaware of, and come out with this “men have been voting for centuries” nonsense. And then cite this as justification for anything and everything that favours women today.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 01:44 AM
4

Feminism is EXACTLY about skipping the “hard parts”. They only really care about the numbers of women in high profile/high status positions. Or positions they decide mean “authority”. And they demand looser requirements for women so that more women can take positions, even when this could jeopardise life as in firefighting and the military. And its main “theorists” are most definitely anti-male.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 01:36 AM
11

Oh here we go: “systemic power structures”. Once you get tied in to feminist terminology, it’s easy to be drawn into feminist gaslighting.
/r/MensRights23/05/25 01:21 AM
0

Synthetic food is the ultimate “processed food” is it not? And how do you think that’s produced?
/r/MensRights22/05/25 09:19 AM
1

Now I know you’re just trolling.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 04:31 AM
1

Actually they are. They’re the ones calling “oligarchy” “patriarchy” instead and making out that “men” as opposed to the extremely wealthy are “privileged”.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 04:30 AM
-2

That’s not even remotely comparable. Cattle eat grass. Not generated by any fossil fuel powered device. As for water, if they don’t drink from a natural water source, it’s likely pumped by a windmill. You have to transport them to market, but you need to do that for grain. The issue is that they produce methane as a product of their digestion.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 04:26 AM
14

It gives women a free pass - they can consume all they want since they’re “lower emitters than men”. It’s the same as saying women can’t be “sexist” since “sexism” is “power PLUS prejudice” and since feminists have decided women have “no power” they can be as chauvinistic as they like and still not be “sexist”. Very convenient isn’t it!
/r/MensRights22/05/25 04:18 AM
6

It doesn’t actually. Cows produce methane by their digestion of grasses. And methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2. However it tends to not last that long in the atmosphere.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 04:15 AM
6

He’s a vegan and like all vegans is promoting it with greater zeal than any Christian missionary ever showed.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 04:14 AM
1

No you can’t. Not unless you have artificial sources of things like L lysine.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 04:12 AM
1

And the vegan guys I know look practically skeletal. I’d suggest that’s more common judging from the images of their protests and “direct action”.
/r/MensRights22/05/25 04:09 AM
2

Ah yes. That former State Member of Parliament made that claim. And then I saw her driving around an inner city suburb in a whopping great SUV that only went off road when she parked it! Pretty sure she had a “carbon footprint” much greater than the average man!
/r/MensRights22/05/25 03:59 AM
4

A dumb, patronising comment justifies setting someone on fire? For an American (you?) she poured about 1 1/2 gallons of gasoline on him and lit him up. Justifiable do you think?
/r/MensRights21/05/25 11:00 AM
10

I “liked” the post, but I can’t say I like the litany of violence.
/r/MensRights21/05/25 10:53 AM
6

Why am I not surprised.
/r/MensRights21/05/25 10:50 AM
1

It’s is EXACTLY what feminism pushes Jake. Why is it so difficult for you to grasp that this is the effect of it?
/r/MensRights21/05/25 05:57 AM
1

I don’t. Feminists, whom you seem to unreservedly support, do.
/r/MensRights21/05/25 05:56 AM
2

It’s called demonisation. Feminists have largely taken over the left of politics, under the guise of “identity politics”, and have to preserve their new status quo. They can’t admit men have issues unless it suits that agenda.
/r/MensRights21/05/25 01:46 AM
6

Yes, so systematically oppressed they still have programs to boost their numbers in higher education even though they’re now over 60% of the student body and growing rapidly. So oppressed that they’re favoured for hiring so that companies can boast about the number of women they have on their books, because 80% women is really “equitable” in the eyes of feminism (the Government department in Australia that monitors workplace “equality” and names and shames companies they decide that don’t measur…
/r/MensRights21/05/25 01:34 AM
6

Have a look at DEI hiring. And there’s is a greater gender imbalance in higher education now than there was in 1972 when special measures were put in place to “correct the imbalance” because obviously it must be due to “discrimination”. Yet because it’s women who dominate, it’s not a problem anymore. And it’s not just universities where this happens either. And I’ll give you an example. In the (non-American) company I work for, there was a student session for engineers, specifically Process Engi…
/r/MensRights21/05/25 01:30 AM
7

It’s easy to be a “good President for labour unions” when these roles get shipped off to other places where there are no unions worthy of the name isn’t it.
/r/MensRights21/05/25 01:23 AM
5

It depends on if it’s for medical reasons or some form of contraceptive doesn’t it. In any event, Roe v Wade only applied in the USA. Yet the trend is across the western world.
/r/MensRights21/05/25 01:20 AM
1

No. They concentrate on s#itting on men.
/r/MensRights21/05/25 01:17 AM
15

It’s less important how you view yourself. Feminists simply declare those that are not their supports are “right wingers” because they’ve largely succeeded in taking over left wing political movements.
/r/MensRights21/05/25 01:16 AM
21

How about the right for equal consideration for a job? The right for equal consideration for educational policies? We’re certainly not getting this at the moment.
/r/MensRights21/05/25 01:07 AM
1

Of course it’s not a coincidence Jake. And it’s very convenient for them to do so. How else are they going to justify giving sought after jobs to the daughters of law firm partners and merchant bankers over the son of some working stiff who worked at the local factory before it got shipped off to China? And don’t pretend that feminist activism pushes this.
/r/MensRights21/05/25 01:02 AM
1

No Jake. It’s that trying to swap economic class out for “gender” is a ridiculous thing to do. If you want to follow a Marxist line, do it properly and use economic class. Switching it for gender is claiming that Melinda Gates and MacKenzie Scott are “oppressed” and the guy who does UberEats deliveries is “privileged”.
/r/MensRights21/05/25 12:56 AM
2

Which is exactly what I said: set up by men, for men, at the expense of women. Do keep up. Or rather, own up. By that rather convenient definition, every single decision making role could be occupied by women and you’d still claim women are the victims.
/r/MensRights21/05/25 12:51 AM
2

You just did though. You invoked them to justify western feminism. Arranged marriages, “rape culture” and honour killings and shunning and the like.
/r/MensRights21/05/25 12:45 AM
2

Gina Reinhart is a “misogynist” is she? And now “Patriarchy helps women too”!!! Perhaps, just perhaps it may be time to revisit the simplistic feminist ideology and attempt to gender things that actually aren’t gendered! And feminist quotas most definitely favour women from wealthy backgrounds. They ask if you’re a woman on application forms, and it’s tracked by company status reports - the percentage of women employed. Even tracked by federal government departments. What they do not track is if…
/r/MensRights21/05/25 12:43 AM
2

And those men are married to women, have daughters etc. And that’s not counting those ones who are actually women who formally own the assets.
/r/MensRights20/05/25 10:26 AM
2

Ah yes, “systems”. Which is why even if every single decision maker was a woman: all elected officials, all bureaucratic department heads, and all CEOs of “top 500 companies” (much beloved of feminists) we’d still be told we live in a “patriarchy” and men are “privileged”. Very convenient if you want to still present yourself as an “underprivileged victim” when you’re heavily favoured don’t you think?
/r/MensRights20/05/25 10:24 AM
3

Right. So because of how women are treated in say Afghanistan, feminism is absolutely entitled to say the same applies in say, Canada, or Australia or UK or the USA? You know there are actual matriarchal cultures not too far away from Afghanistan. How come they don’t count when it comes to declaring how western societies operate?
/r/MensRights20/05/25 10:14 AM
2

But it is in feminist ideology: patriarchy is the idea that the system is set up by men for the benefit of all men at the expense of all women.
/r/MensRights20/05/25 10:10 AM
3

Academic fact? If you define “Gender Studies” as “academia” then maybe!
/r/MensRights20/05/25 10:09 AM
5

What a load of old rubbish. There was a feminist who used to pop up here using the moniker of “Plankton” (anyone remember her?). She tried to tell me that it was Bill Gates’s wife who earned the money and that was why she deserved to get most of the money and was short changed in the settlement. Ignore that a) he was already a billionaire when she met him in the first place; b) he parachuted her into a plumb position (it’s good for your career to be the gf or wife of the company’s founder); c) s…
/r/MensRights20/05/25 09:47 AM
4

You forget that women are “oligarchs” too. And they’re the wives and mothers of these said “oligarchs”. But according to feminism, prioritising these women over the sons of the hoi poloi is “social justice”.
/r/MensRights20/05/25 09:37 AM
2

Yes that was a very remarkable “coincidence” wasn’t it.
/r/MensRights20/05/25 09:33 AM
1

Hilarious. You accuse others of “mental gymnastics” in a comment that is total mental gymnastics. And you talk about “red pillers” (care to define what they are?) refusing to admit the problems “they cause” - in reference to a fictional show. Adolescence is not a “true story” despite claims that it’s reality. Graham quoted two stabbing murders that “inspired” the show: one in Croydon, and one in Liverpool. Neither are much like story in Adolescence other than they were all under the age of 18.
/r/MensRights17/05/25 12:50 PM
14

Right. So commenting about how it’s women that initiate the vast majority of divorces and how the system is biased against men and how our feminist aligned governments push to impose marriage like obligations on the man if you cohabit (or not) once they see this pushes down on marrying. That’s all “misogyny”.
/r/MensRights17/05/25 03:53 AM
1

Wrong. It’s not common law. In Australia they legislated it so that cohabitation had all the legal status and obligations (for the man) of marriage. I even recall the Minister saying when challenged that it would actually “encourage marriage” because there would be no reason not to.
/r/MensRights17/05/25 03:48 AM
7

Women and feminism are not the same. And feminism is strongly anti-male.
/r/MensRights17/05/25 03:11 AM
19

Oh here comes the dictionary again. I’ll see your “dictionary” and raise you Suzanna Danuta Walters; Gearhart; Dworkin; Spiller; the feminist thugs who used threats of violence to pull screenings of Cassie Jaye’s documentary; the “Gender Studies” departments around the world; the feminist lobbyists who lobbied the Federal Government in Australia to not only reverse previous reforms of divorce laws, but add new ones that favour women and encourage false accusations; feminist promoting “mansplaini…
/r/MensRights17/05/25 03:10 AM
7

No doubt all caused by “Andrew Tate and the manosphere”.
/r/MensRights17/05/25 03:02 AM
1

I agree. It’s a “romance”, the life a young girl in Austin’s position would like to have led - and presumably what she admired in a man. Its popularity with women (even today) indicates its pretty common too. Of course it is very well written.
/r/MensRights17/05/25 02:48 AM
2

They did have ways for making their own money. However Jane Austin is writing about the landed gentry. For them, real status was owning land. And it should be noted that Elizabeth would have inherited an income of £50 per year. So she would still have had more money than most working women of the time. But it would have been a far cry from being a gentleman’s daughter and the leading family of her little village. The point is that no man deemed suitable for a woman of her class would marry her g…
/r/MensRights16/05/25 03:56 AM
3

Well feminist is all for women only clubs and spaces, but attacks male only ones and will stop at nothing until they are open to women. And it’s not just high end “gentleman’s clubs” either. Even the Men’s Sheds are constantly pushed to admit women.
/r/MensRights16/05/25 03:07 AM
1

She wasn’t “property”. She was able to reject Colins’s proposals for example. But you are correct that Coverture was still in force, which meant that her husband had full rights to her fortune (of course Darcy had vastly more wealth than Elizabeth Bennet would inherit).
/r/MensRights16/05/25 03:05 AM
5

She did observe those around her. And it does give a flavour of that time and social caste. But yes, they are fictional, and do present an idealised portrait. It’s what women of the time (and clearly much MUCH more recently) would like to be the case.
/r/MensRights16/05/25 03:01 AM
5

Of course. Something works against women - terrible prejudice that must be stopped. It works for women - well that’s OK, and even needed just because… As a regular here used to say: Feminism: Equality, when convenient.
/r/MensRights16/05/25 02:55 AM
5

Wow. NOW a “hypocritical shit-show”???? Who’d ever have imagined it (/s).
/r/MensRights15/05/25 03:31 AM
13

Absolutely. Now way those made of “sugar and spice and all things nice” could do that!
/r/MensRights14/05/25 09:48 AM
2

This. A gay guy could be imprisoned or even executed. Lesbian sex was never illegal. Yet feminists insist that women always had it worse!
/r/MensRights13/05/25 12:30 PM
1

Firstly the point is about how men have fewer rights than women despite feminists loud assertions otherwise (they still seem to think they’re living in the time of the suffragettes or at least 1958). So the focus is on what we don’t have rather than what we do that “gay men can take advantage of”. Secondly, some of the obvious deal with male and female interactions. Clearly these don’t impact on gay guys as much. But they do impact to some degree. Finally there are a great many other issues whic…
/r/MensRights13/05/25 12:26 PM
3

It’s because feminists want to “free” women from these “expectations” (to the point of apparently castigating women who want to have children and prioritise raising them), but do NOT actually change their expectations of men. And here’s the real point. Not all “expectations” are “social constructs”. Are you willing to entertain that possibility?
/r/MensRights13/05/25 08:36 AM
4

Totally agree. Where are these “real feminists” amongst activists, lobbyists and Gender Studies “academics”? They may be a majority of women who would “describe themselves as feminist”. But they’re not the people running campaigns, influencing education, setting corporate policies or having the ear of the Government.
/r/MensRights13/05/25 07:28 AM
5

Personally, I’d prefer it if there were no need for “mens rights activism”. One big reason why it exists is because feminism as a collective, despite what you want to believe, is essentially in denial about men’s issues. It’s always some permutation of “women have it worse”, men’s issues are purely “patriarchy hurts men too” (namely that it’s expectations being the issue); or “the only reason this impacts on men more is that women aren’t allowed to do X, therefore it’s really discrimination agai…
/r/MensRights13/05/25 07:19 AM
6

I have little interest in Gwyneth Paltrow’s dietary habits. It’s not as if she’s indulging in cannibalism or eating toxic waste. She puts her stuff on her podcasts, apparently as a way of promoting her company. And yet here is this woman Mahdawi bemoaning about it supposedly being “newsworthy” by writing about it in great detail in a publication that most certainly considers itself one of the leading, if not THE leading news publications in the world! Loved the way she had to go on about “starvi…
/r/MensRights13/05/25 03:35 AM
6

Suffrage for women in Australia (the whole country) was actually 1902, with some states such as Western Australia and South Australia (the first, predating NZ) having it prior to that.
/r/MensRights13/05/25 12:50 AM
12

There’s clearly a campaign going on. I went to the pharmacy last night and got greeted by this story in The West: https://thewest.com.au/news/crime/rita-saffioti-says-she-is-always-aware-of-surroundings-as-investigation-reveals-scale-of-womens-fear--c-18662620 Unfortunately it’s paywalled. But they have fairly lengthy quotes by a former Lord Mayor (who was well known for corruption and nepotism) going on about how she has to be “always aware of her surroundings” when she’s out by herself. Of cou…
/r/MensRights13/05/25 12:22 AM
6

I would suggest it is. For one it typically doesn’t ban visiting feminists.
/r/MensRights12/05/25 03:09 PM
3

Not really sure where you’re coming from. This doesn’t correlate with your above statement. I’ll say this: women should have to have the same physical tests and requirements as men in those roles - not a lower standard. And if it turns out very few women pass the mark, well that’s just how it is. For the same reason you’d only want people with high intelligence and high motor skills to be brain surgeons. It’s not “unfair” to the dull normal and the uncoordinated: it’s part of the job requirement…
/r/MensRights12/05/25 10:31 AM
28

Meaningful discussion? Feminist groups have never had any interest in that. And if you think this sort of comment is “whining about female empowerment” what’s your view of a large proportion of those post on feminist subs which is nothing other than whining about men and putting them down? IF girl pop songs are really now just “girl boss” stuff and “I don’t need no man” themes and no love song types, it certainly does indicate a shift. And we’d be foolish to ignore it.
/r/MensRights12/05/25 10:26 AM
3

And here we have it folks: the Toni Collette excuse! She had a huge virtue signally meltdown about another garbage movie she did a few years ago based at an iron ore mine - which she called a “disgusting mine” and moaned about how they let off this “huge explosion while we were there” (it was part of her crappy movie btw) and how this is “raping the earth”. Needless to say Ms Virtue Signaller got rounded on by the community she just trashed and they claimed she “didn’t know” that her “Toyonda Pi…
/r/MensRights12/05/25 06:32 AM
7

Cars? Maybe. “Toxic food”? Go on, do explain. And porn? Do explain how this is polluting the planet. I’m interested to hear your mental gymnastics on that one. Alcohol? It doesn’t produce half the pollution or energy consumption women’s fashion does.
/r/MensRights12/05/25 03:15 AM
1

I have. A lesbian MP in our state Parliament said exactly this. Of course I saw her driving around in a pristine SUV not long afterwards.
/r/MensRights12/05/25 12:51 AM
8

Ah Yes. Women are “lower emitters than men”. A favoured one with one of my local State MPs. In fact she stood up in Parliamentary making those same pompous claims. A few weeks later I saw her driving out of a small (boutique) supermarket carpark behind the wheel of a massive SUV, that clearly only goes off-road when she parks it on her front lawn. And she’s just one of many…
/r/MensRights11/05/25 08:34 AM
16

Chanel is “owned by men”?
/r/MensRights11/05/25 08:16 AM
3

It was drifting that way for years, probably since the time of Whitlam. But the Keating’s quotas were probably the biggest single change as it forcibly introduced a massive chunk of these people.
/r/MensRights10/05/25 02:38 AM
2

It’s a predictable and well worn feminist line. We hear some version of it all the time. “Oh men say they want custody but didn’t spend any time with the kids during the marriage - that’s why she got custody”; “the reason why there’s so few women studying engineering, IT, physics, mathematics,… is prejudice; it’s because it’s a boys club; they won’t make room”, but education, psychology, Veterinary Science, and pretty much all other areas are female majority, but that’s just because men don’t wa…
/r/MensRights09/05/25 08:30 AM
3

I’ve seen it too. You’re dead right!
/r/MensRights09/05/25 02:19 AM
4

Hanging out with divorced women is a pretty clear one. It’s fairly common for such women to “spread the word”, in part so they can feel better about themselves. Any married guys should be very concerned if your wife is hanging out with divorced women, and the odds of them blowing smoke in her ear are very high.
/r/MensRights09/05/25 02:19 AM
10

The pattern is similar other places: feminist agitation; feminist activists willingness to take what others consider “boring and distracting” administrative positions in the university hierarchies; a cheap “nod” for “left wing parties” to “prove” their “progressive boba fides” at a time they were actually introducing Thatcher initiatives (which they condemned her for doing btw), and of course the media. But for all that, I think the key step was one Paul Keating. He decides the Labor Party wasn’…
/r/MensRights09/05/25 02:12 AM
1

It’s hard to know where to start with this. This sub is going to disproportionately attract men who’ve been damaged by relationships with women or otherwise have a big problem with women. There are few other places for such men to go, so they will come here. And we need to be aware of this. The clear point is we must be cautious about how we say “women”. First of all, much of the time we really mean feminism or feminist women. Or those stereotypes of women feminists seem quite happy with. Stuff …
/r/MensRights08/05/25 05:54 AM
3

As a regular poster here used to say. Feminism: Equality, when convenient.
/r/MensRights07/05/25 09:09 AM
3

What they claim is a lie. Plenty of times the wife/gf will move on or want nothing to do with him. Assuming he has them in the first place. And men are no more likely than women to have parents who stand by them either. Pathetic.
/r/MensRights07/05/25 09:08 AM
5

They do it all the time.
/r/MensRights07/05/25 09:04 AM
4

Actually Jamie really does look like a child - they deliberately cast an actor who looked very young. They clearly imagined it would boost the impact. You know, “sinister manosphere influences” manipulating “vulnerable children”. The Croydon murderer was 17 and likely fully grown, or close to it. So it’s no accident they made him look like a little kid, it was a deliberate attempt at emotional manipulation. The authors were clearly trying to claim “it’s not the boys it’s the ‘toxic influencers’”…
/r/MensRights07/05/25 08:55 AM
3

And “Emily” is likely a younger “Karen”. Just like a “heifer” becomes a “cow”!
/r/MensRights07/05/25 08:41 AM
4

I strongly suspected that. English is largely a non-gendered language except when it refers directly to people. So what these people are actually doing is arbitrarily imposing notions based English language conventions onto Spanish (and perhaps Portuguese) and claiming they’re being “inclusive”! I never doubted the mentality was like this.
/r/MensRights07/05/25 08:39 AM
2

What would we do without the SJW Karens? Somehow I think they’re in training to become regular Karens when they get a bit older and start reporting the “creepy looking X” getting around with young girl (his daughter or granddaughter).
/r/MensRights07/05/25 04:01 AM
2

I don’t speak Spanish or Portuguese. However I know for French you have “ils” for referring to a group of males and “elles” for a group of females, but if it’s a mixed group they use the “male” “ils”. Since France is a romance language like Spanish and Portuguese, I’d imagine the “convention” would be similar in those languages even if the word isn’t the same. So assume “Latino” is a real Spanish or Portuguese word I’d suspect that it may well be the term for males AND a mixed group. If I’m wron…
/r/MensRights07/05/25 03:59 AM
10

Oh “African American”… I get using it for actual Americans, like Eddie Murphy or James Earl Jones. It is perhaps a bit reductive in equating a singular race to the world’s second largest continent as many in say North Africa don’t fit that appearance but are as African as those from south of the Sahara. But ok. What does stick in my craw is the instance of these “diversity minded” people to apply the term to people who are clearly NOT Americans: Sir Lenny Henry; Nelson Mandela; the population of…
/r/MensRights07/05/25 03:52 AM
1

They won’t like that either though.
/r/MensRights07/05/25 03:06 AM
3

Everyone is a “first offender” at some point. And it’s very rare for a first offender to go to prison. It would have to be a very serious crime. So if they’re talking about women going inside for a “first offence” it’s obviously a very serious crime they’ve committed.
/r/MensRights07/05/25 02:59 AM
2

Typical BS from The Feminist Weekly. For any visiting feminists, this sort of garbage is how they “create” the “gender pay gap”. They posted a few weeks back here a presentation from the department in Australia to a Senate committee where they admitted when they talked about gender pay gaps” at airlines they were really lumping flights attendants in with pilots. Their excuse is that they’re trying to get more women hired in higher paying roles. But this is a poor measure really. Take EasyJet lis…
/r/MensRights07/05/25 02:41 AM
3

Isn’t everything?
/r/MensRights07/05/25 02:13 AM
25

I do it = good. You do it = bad. A concept feminism loves to promote. How else can they still claim to be “champions of equality”?
/r/MensRights07/05/25 02:13 AM
34

I’ve never understood the term “Latin X”. What on earth is it supposed to mean that something like “Latino” doesn’t?
/r/MensRights07/05/25 02:11 AM
1

What RP is keeps changing. A few years back, RP was realising that it isn’t “a man’s world” despite all the claims: that women are not “downtrodden”; that men are not privileged and “advantaged” as constantly asserted. That there are plenty of ways that men are actively discriminated against that are swept under the carpet. Hence why Cassie Jaye’s documentary had the title it did. Yet in the last year or so, RP is now defined as the dating market and sexual attraction, which was only part of ear…
/r/MensRights07/05/25 02:00 AM
1

Feminism is not, nor has it ever been a “science”. And whilst I’d grudgingly allow psychology to be a sort of science, given statistical studies of behavioural patterns, stuff like “political science” and others are certainly not sciences. Those others (even sociology) are legitimate fields of study, but are not sciences - sociology in particular is often just a vehicle for pushing an ideology. However Gender Studies is purely an ideology, with a little bit of cherry picking to provide superfici…
/r/MensRights06/05/25 06:54 AM
1

It’s a feminist falsehood: women are descended from their “oppressors”. And have had any financial advantages wealthy families have.
/r/MensRights06/05/25 06:19 AM
0

How about actual lawmakers and major “opinion makers” on the “mainstream media” treating a fictional TV drama as if it’s a serious examination of teen boys and the “manosphere”?
/r/MensRights06/05/25 06:01 AM
0

The issue with feminism is it’s utter denial of their being “male issues” without having to dress it up as “patriarchy hurts men too” or claim women have those problems too and obviously worse. And clear nonsense like asserting that women are “discriminated against” in education when the actual figures show the opposite. These is no sense at all that feminists are going to say, “well we’ve achieved this, in fact we’ve gone beyond equality, so it’s time we started to wind back these programs to b…
/r/MensRights06/05/25 05:59 AM
8

Have a look here: https://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/asia-argento-metoo-actress-now-admits-to-sex-with-underage-boy-20180823-p4zz75.html
/r/MensRights06/05/25 05:30 AM
9

You can just say that Solanas was a fruitcake. She probably was. Shooting Warhol is supporting evidence that she was off her nut. The fact they try to sanitise her is what’s really disturbing. Daly and Gearhart are quoted academics and Dworkin is still highly quoted today - so they can’t dismiss them so easily. Indeed they don’t, although some try to claim Gearhart “doesn’t have many followers”. But getting feminists to outright condemn them? Good luck. I’ve yet to see any do that.
/r/MensRights06/05/25 03:51 AM
2

And you still haven’t noticed the utter denial that men have legitimate issues? Or the fact they drop the idea of “equal representation” once women are a majority, but keep it for all areas where men are a majority? Except for housework of course. Or they constant demands that men’s groups must open to women, but women’s groups are just fine and there should be more of them? Their blatant support for clear discrimination against men in places like that art gallery in Tasmania? Their denials that…
/r/MensRights06/05/25 03:33 AM
2

Even more eye opening was the level feminists went to, to try and stop it being seen. Including threats of violence and damage against venues unless the screening was pulled (it was particularly bad in Australia). And the way they went after Cassie Jaye personally was criminal.
/r/MensRights06/05/25 03:23 AM
3

Manosphere =/= Tate.
/r/MensRights06/05/25 03:21 AM
4

What really angers me about these “progressives” is that they act as if the daughter of a law firm partner or merchant banker is “more oppressed” than the son of a labourer or laid off factory worker, and hence should be preferred in education, employment and other areas whilst he needs to “check his privilege”. And I’m further annoyed when they try to claim it isn’t like this - it very much is.
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates06/05/25 02:45 AM
7

Definitely. I’ve heard in political arguments you have to say it over and over and over, long past the time you’re sick of hearing your own words. I wish it weren’t true but it seems to be.
/r/MensRights06/05/25 12:09 AM
15

It’s a standard feminist excuse. They say it’s “justice” for a 25 year old man to be discriminated against in favour of a 25 year old woman (including one from a very wealthy background) because…. A woman 70 years ago would have been discriminated against in such a job application are would have been likely passed over for a man. So today’s 25 year old man and woman is now the “same person” as a man or woman 70 years back. How does that make any sense? It doesn’t unless it’s just an excuse for d…
/r/MensRights05/05/25 09:01 AM
91

It’s possible. That’s perhaps why that hatchet job/propaganda piece Adolescence has been so over-promoted. A sign of panic perhaps? But in general I don’t think we’ve reached the turning point. You typically only realise you have after the event, and the slow windback of DEI in the US (followed by a flurry with Trump) is a necessary but insufficient step. I suspect that you’re thinking of the windback in “#Metoo” which has gone from a frenzy to an ongoing background push. It didn’t help that one…
/r/MensRights05/05/25 08:56 AM
7

Feminists simultaneously condemn male spaces as discriminatory, celebrate female spaces as necessary for “safety” and “mutual support”, and then pretend they’re not campaigning against them at all and we can have our own spaces, just that they’re “not popular”! It’s pure dishonesty.
/r/MensRights05/05/25 05:06 AM
12

That’s one of the things that infuriates me the most. And it’s not just feminist women either. The excuse is always that high end clubs bring men only shut women out of being part of the establishment (funny how so called “leftists” want well off women to be part of the establishment, but I’ll let that slide). However the Men’s Shed movement is anything but a “high end club”. It’s something set up for men’s mental health by specifically trying to facilitate male-male support and communication. T…
/r/MensRights05/05/25 05:00 AM
7

It’s ridiculous to imagine Thorne (or Graham either) are “experts” in any way, shape or form. Still, at least they’re not asking the actors! Martin Sheen played Kennedy in a miniseries and a fictional President in a TV show and he’s asked questions as if he really held the Office and has some special insight. The question is this: are our countries run by actual morons, or is this just propaganda to enable them to do what they already want to do with a “oh but think of the children” and “think o…
/r/MensRights05/05/25 03:23 AM
10

It’s what they want to believe. And since everyone else (so it seems to them) bang on about it, so do they. Oh and it’s “all based on true cases”.
/r/MensRights05/05/25 01:30 AM
12

It fits their preconceptions! And it’s actually well acted and well made. The actor playing Jamie is exceptional for a younger teen in terms of “gravitas”. Also British Labour wants to follow their Australian colleagues in banning access to social media for the under 16’s, and it’s a good propaganda piece for this. Finally, it fits the “feminist narrative”. Incels and “incel content” (Thorne has shown he has no idea what incel content really is given he claims to have visited incel subs on Reddi…
/r/MensRights05/05/25 01:28 AM
1

They don’t do much against girls who bully other girls either. Boys who bully girls they might do something about. But even then it’d be hit and miss.
/r/MensRights04/05/25 06:57 AM
2

Well he did hate women; but not just women. From what I can see he was hating long before there were any Incel subs to join.
/r/MensRights04/05/25 05:42 AM
3

And that’s what feminist leaders are trying to do. They talk equality, but their campaigns say otherwise. NOW has relentlessly campaigned against 50:50 custody. Katherine Spillar declares that DV is “just another term for wife beating” because “everyone knows” men hit women, not the other way around. Women are now over 60% of university students and graduates. This is more unequal than it was in 1972, but because it’s women in the majority, there’s nothing to see here folks. Certainly no reason …
/r/MensRights04/05/25 05:21 AM
2

What to say? Turkey was a very secular (although Muslim majority) country before Erdogan. But since he became leader, the country is far more Islamic. This means that Turkish feminist women are dealing with a quite different society to their western counterparts (although his may change with the high levels of immigration, which feminists tend to support). I don’t feel as if I’m well versed enough in the role of women in an Islamic society to really comment on any of that. What I will say is tha…
/r/MensRights02/05/25 08:23 AM
5

The “root cause” from what I can see is that he was an outcast who didn’t know how to relate and connect to other people in real life. And he blamed everyone else for it, and ultimately took revenge. You could blame it on being mixed race; on his sister being favoured (he thought she was); his father marrying a Moroccan; his mother indulging him; him being a short arse (perhaps he blamed this on being half Chinese and assumed if he expunged the Chinese side he’d get taller - apparently he imagin…
/r/MensRights02/05/25 08:04 AM
5

This is an “incel space” according to Thorne, one of the writers of Adolescence. And I don’t see much of it here. I have no idea how much time Rodger spent on Incel sites. But I suspect he was already a ticking bomb before he went on them. Look at what’s known about his life - he was a mess. I suspect he’s a case of a crazy looking for a place he belongs rather than being made crazy by being part of that group.
/r/MensRights02/05/25 07:58 AM
1

Looks like it’s a Private Members Bill - coming from an Opposition MP. These can get up, but aside from the fact that most votes in Parliament are held by the political opponents of this party and may vote against it simply on party lines, the Government can set the agenda and slow down the consideration of this bill behind the basic government business. That alone will drag it out. When private members bills get pushed quickly through Parliament, like the hunting ban, or the Daylight Saving bil…
/r/MensRights02/05/25 06:32 AM
10

Maybe. But France explicitly banned it much more recently. Women certainly had power then.
/r/MensRights02/05/25 06:20 AM
5

Except feminists see women’s rights as men having fewer rights - not that they admit it.
/r/MensRights02/05/25 05:47 AM
1

I think the Dems, indeed many other political parties on both sides of the spectrum but particularly on the left need to grasp.
/r/MensRights02/05/25 05:46 AM
2

True enough. On the other hand George W Bush’s service in the air national guard is similarly treated. Also looking at his bio, he was teaching in China at the end of the ‘80’s. Pretty sure he wasn’t performing duties with the National Guard at that point. No being American, I’m somewhat in the dark about how it operates. Sometimes it sounds like the Army Reserve, but our Army Reserve requires its members to serve one weekend a month and for a 2 week training/deployment per year. Does the US Nat…
/r/MensRights02/05/25 05:42 AM
6

Yeah, I saw that short video of him changing an air filter (which didn’t look like it needed changing anyway). Weird stuff. I think the fact that someone imagined this was a “solution” shows how deep seated this issue is.
/r/MensRights02/05/25 05:28 AM
5

Me too. It’s been 16 years since the last store closed in the UK, and what was once Woolworths in the US is now “Footlocker”. So the name was a dead giveaway. And it’s certainly true that many women think they can physically attack men with impunity.
/r/MensRights02/05/25 05:19 AM
2

I’ll explain. Woolworths became known in Australia due to Hollywood films in the ‘20’s and ‘30’s. But whist they opened stores in Britain (which operated until 2008/9) they had no plans to open in Australia. So one businessman then took the initiative and established a store with the same name knowing that it wasn’t yet a registered trademark in Australia and that he wouldn’t be facing a legal challenge since the real Woolworths wouldn’t open here and want their name back! After WWII it turned i…
/r/MensRights02/05/25 05:14 AM
1

It’s bad enough in WA, but in the big V you really need to watch your back. That kind of behaviour clearly shows those two didn’t expect you to hit back. They obviously thought they could do as they pleased and you could never retaliate in kind.
/r/MensRights02/05/25 05:04 AM
1

Feminism insists that DV is caused by “women’s status”, which in turn is set by the number of women in “leadership positions” and the professions etc. There are more women than ever in this positions. Therefore if feminist theories about DV are true, DV should be at an all time low. It’s the feminist claims that make no sense.
/r/MensRights01/05/25 11:45 PM
1

I think it’s a case that people here want the show to be outrageously bad so our opponent’s hypocrisy is clear and the show is explicitly bad. In fact the relative insidiousness of the show is the worst part about it. It looks realistic. And they deceptively say it’s “based on true cases” to help convey the idea it’s all true when it’s really fiction, and really based on what various adults assert about teen boys rather than what they’re doing. Representing a fictional drama as if it’s a documen…
/r/MensRights01/05/25 07:41 AM
1

There’s plenty of examples of women abusing their men. Although I dare say you explain those away as “women defending themselves”. Feminists claim DV is “caused” by the “inferior status of women”, and that if only we had all these women in positions of authority it would stop. This kind of mentality permeates the Duluth model. So with 46% of government MPs and half the Cabinet women, and loads of professional women around and very visible, the status of women should be way higher and DV at an al…
/r/MensRights01/05/25 06:37 AM
1

Lost, it should be decreasing if feminist explanations were actually true.
/r/MensRights01/05/25 06:26 AM
5

I didn’t think you did. The point is that there are certainly some women who think of themselves as feminists who “aren’t horrible”, as you’ve acknowledged.
/r/MensRights30/04/25 12:10 PM
7

Rodger’s dead victims were stabbed or shot. The ones he “randomly” hit with his car survived as far as I’m aware.
/r/MensRights30/04/25 09:19 AM
20

That one really angers me, particularly when it’s invoked to justify feminist inspired anti-DV programmes - he murdered complete strangers, not DV by definition. The killer was a paranoid schizophrenic, who had been off his meds for 5 years! The terms “crazy” and “madman” may be overused and misused, but they actually apply in his case. He had serious mental illness. And the soul searching should be how we deal with mental illness - which for the most part is giving them a prescription and dumpi…
/r/MensRights30/04/25 09:09 AM
17

From what I can see of him, he was already bitter and angry before there were any incel “rabbit holes” to be caught up in! I suspect he was a ticking bomb. He was almost a complete social outcast; couldn’t fit in with others and imagined any kind of relationship with other people needed to follow some fixed formula. Generally not a very good formula for success. If he did get onto incel subs they certainly wouldn’t have calmed his rage, but I doubt they induced him to do anything. The most distu…
/r/MensRights30/04/25 08:59 AM
2

I am not denying DV takes place, or that women are victims of DV. What I am saying is that feminist need to decide if there is this “epidemic” of DV (implying it’s worse than ever, or at least for a very long time) or they need to rethink what they claim is the cause of it - namely the “status of women” which seems to be defined by the number of women in professions and politics. If the latter were true DV should be much lower than 20 to 30 years ago, or even 10.
/r/MensRights30/04/25 08:46 AM
2

Reform? How is it “reform”? You don’t seriously mean “reformed characters” do you? If the whole basis doesn’t fit most of the incidents, it’s small wonder it fails to have any statistically significant rate of preventing recidivism.
/r/MensRights30/04/25 08:41 AM
2

Ever heard of Jess Phillips? She had a good laugh at male suicide several years back, so she clearly saw it as a joke. And how about Clementine Ford?
/r/MensRights30/04/25 07:40 AM
1

Actually it is. Child abuse is not the same as sexual abuse. Physical abuse is more commonly perpetrated by women on children.
/r/MensRights30/04/25 07:37 AM
6

Certainly Erin Prizzey, although she never subscribed to the idea that women were never violent. And the point about Cassie Jaye was that she still regarded herself as a feminist when she began making it - but was determined nonetheless to make a fair documentary, not the hit piece they wanted her to make. And she was ready to think things through: in particular instead of just writing off the guy in San Diego as a “misogynist” (as a feminist sub would) she was able to consider why she felt “cha…
/r/MensRights30/04/25 05:17 AM
1

Probably too late for this, but here goes. Starts with a shot of a police inspector looking at his phone. Then joins his female colleague in their vehicle and join in with a tactical response group in a raid. They smash in the front door is a suburban house with a battering ram, force a woman and her teen daughter to lay face down on the ground and a man to direct them to where his son is. They burst into the kids room (he’s supposed to be 13, but looks like a Primary School kid), and they arres…
/r/MensRights30/04/25 05:07 AM
1

They supposedly did film it all in one take - although they much have switched cameras from time to time - such as the second episode where they live the school and there’s a drone shot which ends up at the murder site and the killer’s father leaving flowers there.
/r/MensRights30/04/25 04:32 AM
1

The majority of child abuse is anyway.
/r/MensRights30/04/25 04:30 AM
2

As for it being a “national emergency”… who said this? The same people who’ve done SFA about Rotherham and other perpetrators of certain backgrounds? If they really believed it to be this “national emergency” they would take action against these people. Clearly it’s about appealing to certain pressure groups - both claiming it’s a “national emergency” and NOT taking serious action against people who are clearly guilty of heinous crimes because it may cause a backlash against another pressure gro…
/r/MensRights30/04/25 04:29 AM
2

That is actually what he said Lost-Chocolate. And SA is a lower offence.
/r/MensRights30/04/25 04:24 AM
2

If it is an “epidemic” then the feminist claim that DV is caused by women’s status being “too low” is false, since women’s status has never been higher. So DV, by that logic, should be at an all time low, not an “epidemic”.
/r/MensRights30/04/25 04:21 AM
1

We all know that’s not to help men, but because feminists became concerned that employers would be less likely to hire women if they were able to be absent far more often than a male candidate would be - DEI or not.
/r/MensRights30/04/25 04:12 AM
1

Men did. That’s what Movember was. And now it’s run by feminist women who are shifting the purpose of it. That’s the whole point of this thread. Even the Men’s Shed movement is constantly being pushed to admit women, where it will cease to be a “men’s space”; which means you won’t have the sorts of discussions and connections it was set up to facilitate. Are you ok with that?
/r/MensRights30/04/25 03:40 AM
1

No. But you’re misrepresenting them.
/r/MensRights30/04/25 03:19 AM
2

Except it doesn’t work at all in any statistical sense. Any how does it show anyone where their “anger comes from”? It blithely decides that DV is caused by women’s status and a desire to dominate women - in ALL cases, no exceptions.
/r/MensRights30/04/25 03:18 AM
3

US.
/r/MensRights30/04/25 01:40 AM
6

The worst of it is that they only ID’d him because of the CCTV evidence which proved she wasn’t telling the truth - that’s how they identified the person/incident she was complaining about, and were able to trace him to going through the turnstiles and matched the time to his oystercard swipe. I wonder if that is the same here, I’ve a suspicion it is.
/r/MensRights30/04/25 01:40 AM
5

This happens a lot. Ask Mark Pearson. Or that little boy in the US who got accused by the Karen a few years back.
/r/MensRights30/04/25 01:34 AM
9

Absolutely. And they’ll never stop. Until someone actually stops them.
/r/MensRights30/04/25 12:58 AM
12

There are women who regard themselves as feminists who certainly aren’t. Do you want examples? Cassie Jaye up until her The Red Pill episode. A horrible person would have just lied and made the hatchet job feminist groups wanted. And she’s far from alone. However big name feminists; feminist “theorists”; the “gender studies” crew…. That’s another story.
/r/MensRights30/04/25 12:57 AM
7

Well they’re made out of “sugar and spice and all things nice”.
/r/MensRights29/04/25 08:25 AM
36

Their idea of “equality” is straight from Animal Farm. That’s why I’ve not respect for them.
/r/MensRights29/04/25 08:20 AM
2

It has no meaning for those who throw it around like an insult. For them it’s just a term of contempt. The point is, though, that self-described incels really exist. There is an online incel community. And they’re bitter and angry. It would be like calling anyone you don’t like “feminist”!
/r/MensRights29/04/25 08:16 AM
87

I never believed all the BS from schools in their claims they were having this zero tolerance to bullying claim. I remember the dismissive attitude teachers would take to it in the very early grades, where intervention might actually work. But it’s pretty low when it’s the teacher herself that does it, and gets the kids involved in her dirty work. That said, I’ve seen this sort of thing happen all too often, and I’m sure many others here have too. But to go as bad as this is appalling.
/r/MensRights29/04/25 07:51 AM
1

You have one already. You asked why would women lie, and I’ve just given a few reasons off the top of my head. Or are you asserting no women ever lies, is ever vindictive, ever?
/r/MensRights29/04/25 03:13 AM
2

Plethora of forums? And what are they? Women are violent too? Of course women are all “sweetness and light” because they’re made out of “sugar and spice and all that’s nice”, right???? Anti-feminists? Hmm, why would any man have issues with feminism????? I mean feminism is “supportive of men”, never demonises them, never accuses them of being cause of all that’s bad in the world; never calls them inferior to women; never forces them to be silent and constantly apologise to women - you know, they…
/r/MensRights29/04/25 02:48 AM
3

That’s why women get so much longer sentences than men; and why the UK has this massive movement to not jail men anymore; and why family court is heavily biased against women… oh wait, it’s the other way round!!!!! Women claiming that family court is biased against them seems entirely based on moans about the father having some sort of visitation they must adhere to. Or that they don’t get 100% of his assets and income. Yes bad guys can game the system, but so do bad women, and the system suppor…
/r/MensRights29/04/25 02:33 AM
1

As for “your book”: that’s the point. You want Incel to be just another word for “misogynist”. But they’re not actually the same. A misogynist is someone who hates or despises women. Historically much of what could be called “misogynistic writing” came from monks - no doubt influenced by the fact that many would have had “urges and fantasies” that were against their vows of celibacy and devotion to God, and so saw women as these vile temptresses to lure them off the “true path”. However they wer…
/r/MensRights29/04/25 02:29 AM
1

Menslib???? A pack of male feminists? Well I’m sure you think they’re superior because they only go on about the “feminist approved” issues that our “feminist superiors” have decided are legitimate. A group that never will mention that feminist activism is hostile to men; that it disregards male issues or indeed makes them worse; and certainly won’t bring up inconvenient facts like the education system failing boys or the obvious conclusion that the push to put more women into higher education s…
/r/MensRights29/04/25 02:16 AM
13

Didn’t realise the Grand Wizard of the KKK was a black man. I thought he was a white loony tune. I was making the point that over using the term “racist” actually reduces the impact of the term and actually makes these guys look less sinister than they are if you use the same term for some guy who wants a lower immigration rate. These clowns are now doing the same thing with the term “incel”. The impact is different in that Incels are not innately bad or even threatening. But if you call the guy…
/r/MensRights28/04/25 12:34 PM
3

That’s one type of feminist (the ones that Incels concentrate on no doubt). But there are others at least as common: There’s the “bad boy fan”. Thinks s#itty guys are oh so sexy and hot. And imagine that “he’ll change for ME” half the time too. He, predictably, treats her like utter crap until the inevitable split; and she gets suckered into the next bad relationship with the next DH who’s “oh so hot”. Sometimes it can be with a “player” and half the time she knows he’s a player, but imagines on…
/r/MensRights28/04/25 08:52 AM
2

They seem a bit odd over there - perhaps they just want to feel superior to someone. I’m not sure what you mean by “the tide has turned”. The term “incel” has simply become more widely used by non-incels from what I can see. And the term is certainly got very negative connotations. Take a look at this: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sf_Wbj8jhlw This was on a Government broadcaster - and see how the Sociologist has categorised the “manosphere” in very negative terms. The only positive is that he (…
/r/MensRights28/04/25 05:22 AM
3

This isn’t an incel sub. We do have incels come here. Back in 2021 it was mentioned by some of the regulars that the numbers had increased significantly because Reddit had shutdown the Incel and MGTOW subs (they’re almost polar opposites btw), and so there was nowhere else on Reddit to go but here. You can sometimes see who they are when they start ranting, but what may be seen as “anti-woman” can come from someone who was a victim of a malicious accusation (these do happen) or have been destroy…
/r/MensRights28/04/25 05:08 AM
5

Hate to break it to you mate: this isn’t an incel sub (to be fair, Thorne doesn’t get that either). However you are right in a way. Being an incel is actually a self descriptor and an “online community”. It’s a label a certain group of guys have adopted for themselves. These guys are typically bitter and resentful: sometimes rightly so, other times not. However it does refer to a group of guys who have come together because they feel they have no hope in the “dating game”, and they believe they …
/r/MensRights28/04/25 04:39 AM
36

The great paradox: Women are disproportionately attracted to selfish and unpleasant men (or worse). They get treated badly and conclude that that’s what ALL men are like. Not all women are like this of course. But plenty are and feminism seems to promote this “narrative”. They never seriously ask the obvious question: why are so many women attracted to such men in the first place?
/r/MensRights28/04/25 03:09 AM
3

Why? Revenge against a failed romance? Avenging herself against someone who rejected her? Getting support and sympathy from a group of women? These are ones I just thought of off the top of my head. You don’t like the idea of men having a page like this. If you really believed we’re “equal” and want to “promote equality” what makes you so sure that women won’t abuse this the way you assume men would?
/r/MensRights28/04/25 01:59 AM
1

Can you even see the double standard in what you said? And you claim you and feminism want social equality. This is why to us the feminist idea of “equality” sounds like equality if the Animal Farm variety.
/r/MensRights28/04/25 01:43 AM
4

And what does that look like in cases like this? That she should get a harsher sentence? Or that her male equivalents should get the kind of consequences she did?
/r/MensRights28/04/25 01:39 AM
3

Let me guess: you know this because you watched Adolescence and have heard Andrew Tate says bad stuff?
/r/MensRights28/04/25 01:34 AM
14

Seriously?
/r/MensRights28/04/25 01:33 AM
49

It’s a generalised term of abuse these days, in much the way “racist”, “white supremest” and “fascist” are, or that “commie” or “Bolshevik” were in the past: just slurs hurled against people you didn’t like or whose opinions you didn’t want to hear. All of these things have meaning, and usually very negative meanings, which is why it’s a cheap shot to insult and demean someone you don’t like. However the constant misuse debases the meaning of these terms. Hurling the label “racist” on someone wh…
/r/MensRights28/04/25 01:12 AM
2

If it doesn’t “blame one group in particular” it comes very close to doing so. It doesn’t draw any distinction between “good manosphere content” and “troubling manosphere content”. It’s all “bad”. Nor does it give any concept as to why Jamie may be attracted to this content. If it was about minority kids being attracted to radical sites they’d slip in some bit about them experiencing racism or exclusion. Nothing with Jamie other than being bad a soccer, being called an incel and having a father …
/r/MensRights27/04/25 01:49 PM
2

How about this one: https://news.sky.com/story/amp/schoolboys-made-to-apologise-for-stuff-we-didnt-do-during-assembly-about-sexual-assault-12260783 Or this one: https://7news.com.au/sport/soccer/west-australian-schoolboys-accused-of-misogyny-for-cheering-on-indoor-soccer-goalkeeper-c-2847204.amp Incidentally I’ve been told that the toilets in question in the Como case are nowhere near the gym. The teacher concerned went out of her way to be “offended”. Plus we only have her word for it that she …
/r/MensRights27/04/25 01:30 PM
2

And funnily enough she knew he was an accomplice to murder but told the police SFA! The scene actually made no sense given the storyline, unless she attacked him for being the killer’s friend. The victim didn’t know Jamie was carrying a kitchen knife - in the CCTV she pushed him over and turned her back on him and slowly walked on (she’d have run or at least not turned her back if she’d know he’d been given a kitchen knife). So how did her friend know the kid gave Jamie the murder weapon when it…
/r/MensRights27/04/25 01:20 PM
4

And that is blaming it on the manosphere, isn’t it. You might want to rethink that assertion about “critical thinking skills” and “analysis”.
/r/MensRights27/04/25 01:13 PM
0

I don’t know how we’re getting out of this one. I do know this ideology has no longer term future.
/r/MensRights27/04/25 10:59 AM
6

Just had this show up in my feed (although I’ve commented on it in Men’s Rights). This is why I support the likes of the Garrack Club (now fallen) and the Weld Club in being all male clubs. Neither of them would allow me as a member, but my view is that if the elite cannot keep a male space, we’ve got no chance. And my reasons for this is shown in that article. Feminist do NOT restrict their demands that women be admitted to male spaces to high end, elite clubs. Places like the Atheneum are seen…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates27/04/25 10:57 AM
7

Becoming misshapen women?
/r/MensRights27/04/25 09:49 AM
1

It’s the fruits of feminism. They didn’t tone down their rhetoric and “demands” once women were in the workplace and politics in large numbers - they’re already past “critical mass” when they go beyond 25%. Instead they recruited women who’d had bad relationships either with their fathers, their boyfriends or their husbands. It’s easy to convince them that that’s all men due to “patriarchy”. And they’ve got offical University Departments that constantly churn out “proof” that women are hard done…
/r/MensRights27/04/25 09:38 AM
2

I guess he doesn’t believe you. Probably because it goes against everything he’s experienced or seen others experience. The truth is that personal relationships are all over the place, and always have been. There were plenty of women who “ruled the roost” at home. And even today you get women who are basically servants to their husband/boyfriend for all the talk of feminism. The issue is really one of law and wider society. And how feminism is fake equality.
/r/MensRights27/04/25 04:29 AM
8

The problem is that women do have their own groups and organisations. In fact feminist whinge continually about how they had to set this stuff up and then hear “what about the men”. But at the very same time, feminists DEMAND women be included in any and all male groups and spaces. Although they all supported that woman and her art gallery in Tasmania excluding men from a bar with a large proportion of the exhibition (which was not advertised). The excuse for that one is that women were excluded…
/r/MensRights27/04/25 02:18 AM
6

Exactly. They have no shame at all.
/r/MensRights27/04/25 01:59 AM
1

You do realise the parents are part of the show don’t you? You may as well say the cop blamed it on bullying not the show. There’s a little bit about the parents not checking on him enough - the cop is shamed into taking his son out to talk to him. And the school is certainly a shambles (and most of the teachers are male). And the father has a temper so the kid thinks having a temper is the right way to go (that’s the implication anyway). And (the big one) he was hopeless at soccer and his fathe…
/r/MensRights27/04/25 01:07 AM
5

She hasn’t learned a thing has she. All the fake apologies about “hurting servicemen” and she’s at it again. Only with even more gross hypocrisy!
/r/MensRights26/04/25 07:14 AM
1

They generalise with the “manosphere”; they don’t acknowledge that there’s any other issues with “the kids” apart from social media; and the only issue that Jamie has is that he was hopeless at soccer and his father was ashamed of him. But look to the interviews the writers have given. One interview, Thorne stated that Andrew Tate wasn’t the worst of it. That “he’d been visiting” the “incel sites” on 4chan and Reddit, and that these were appropriate the real problem. Reddit had already shut down…
/r/MensRights26/04/25 06:48 AM
3

The ABC’s vote compass does that by default - it reflects the prejudices of those who work there. So I wouldn’t pay too much attention to what it says. You now what you think - you certainly don’t need some biased ABC algorithm to tell you what you think.
/r/MensRights26/04/25 02:32 AM
2

Back in 2021 a regular here drew a distinction: those who subscribe to “patriarchy theory” and those who don’t. Many feminists obfuscate about what “the patriarchy” is. But essentially the claim is thus: a social/political/economic system set up by men, run by men, for the benefit of all men at the expense of all women. That is clearly what “patriarchy” means. For all the mumbling, it’s clearly how they claim that men are “privileged” and enjoy the “benefits of patriarchy”. Women who just think …
/r/MensRights26/04/25 02:25 AM
5

It is surely an absolute advantage for a feminist to hate men. And it explains why so many leading feminists do.
/r/MensRights26/04/25 02:05 AM
1

Odds are 10:1 they’ll go on about the number of CEOs, or the number of members of the legislature. I had one on the Movember thread trying to claim that 75% of the British Government was male - a quick search showed that 46% of Government MPs were women and half the Cabinet members were. They’ll still be trying make these claims when they’re both 80% female. And even if all branches of Government and all executive positions in major corporations were held by women, they’ll still claim women are …
/r/MensRights26/04/25 02:03 AM
3

Ok. It’s a work of fiction. It’s not great literature - neither Graham or Thorne are in line to be the Shakespeare or Tolstoy of our time. It does not give real insight into what led Jamie into these “harmful circles”. But it asserts he was in these harmful circles. And that this “radicalised him” - as if they’re talking about someone becoming an Islamist! In fact this lot give more understanding TO Islamists - “oh why are they so estranged from the society they live in, and how can we make them…
/r/MensRights26/04/25 01:39 AM
1

They were quite clear about it being this “terrible, online content” (which they had already defined as all that “Andrew Tate stuff”) in the final episode. And the authors’ intent is quite clear in interviews they’ve given. Graham moaned on about how Musk wasn’t suspending Tate’s X account. Thorne even claimed that Tate “wasn’t the worst of it” that he’s “researched” all these “incel sites on 4chan and Reddit” (and once again, Reddit shutdown the Incel subs long before Thorne showed up). They’re…
/r/MensRights26/04/25 01:21 AM
7

You certainly have a good point there.
/r/MensRights26/04/25 01:13 AM
5

And were utterly ignored by the writers.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 05:09 PM
17

They clearly blamed manosphere content for turning him into a killer.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 05:00 PM
11

Not really. For the murder, he took a knife with him. And he actually got a friend to give him the knife rather than take a kitchen knife from home. That indicates premeditation. Also it’s not clear she “relentlessly bullied” him. She put incel taunts on one of his Instagram posts. And he was trying to take advantage of her being vulnerable after she was bullied and humiliated online. Also that’s tied in with the cop’s son citing the “80:20 rule” and saying “you need to use tricks”. This is clea…
/r/MensRights25/04/25 04:59 PM
21

So Elizabethan England was a matriarchy; Russia was a matriarchy for much of the 18th Century; Britain was a matriarchy throughout the 1980’s; India was a matriarchy for two decades during Indira Gandhi’s time…
/r/MensRights25/04/25 04:32 PM
88

It’s one of my biggest gripes with feminism (along with destroying due process; institutionalised discrimination in education and employment). And it goes to the core of what is wrong with feminism on a practical level: it’s “rules for thee but not for me”. Women can have their spaces; women can have their exclusive groups; women can have their clubs. Indeed we need more of these - safety (that’s one excuse). But men? Oh no. That’s discrimination. That’s scared little boys too frightened to have…
/r/MensRights25/04/25 04:16 PM
39

The irony is that when it was all male, gran needn’t worry (unless he was hiding his gayness all these years). But letting women in actually gives her something to worry about!!!!
/r/MensRights25/04/25 04:04 PM
40

Oh the media loves tales like this. Every.single.time I read one of these puff pieces it’s got some version of “the women are so respectful of the fact it’s a men’s space” - in this one they have the woman asserting they “haven’t taken over”. Well when some place is 50% female it isn’t a “men’s space” by definition. And by what criteria does this woman think they haven’t “taken over”? I’ve pointed this stuff out over and again here. It’s not just high end, elite clubs they demand women be admitt…
/r/MensRights25/04/25 04:02 PM
37

Exactly. It’s only a matter of time before one of them starts moaning that it’s off limits and they’re equal members and the rest of it.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 03:48 PM
32

A TikTok trend: already suspicious in my mind.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 03:45 PM
5

There’s plenty of real objections to the show, and above all to the idea that a work of fiction is being cited to change laws; to criminalise content; and as an “educational resource” as if it really is a true story. It doesn’t even give any real sense as to why Jamie got drawn to this “terrible content” in the first place, apart from the usual “mediocre white guy” swipe so beloved of feminists.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 03:39 PM
1

I agree: what was he thinking?
/r/MensRights25/04/25 03:15 PM
5

TBH I’m not absolutely sure that a strip search is a regular part of the process when someone is taken into custody. It likely is, depending on the type of offence. There’s a lot to complain about with Adolescence. Mostly it’s inane way that so many treat it as if it’s some sort of cross between a documentary and a major offical investigation. In fact it’s a work of fiction, with only limited connections with real cases and rather tells what the authors think the issues aught to be. To focus on …
/r/MensRights25/04/25 03:06 PM
3

Warts and all? Only in their minds. They had already decided the problem was “Andrew Tate” and “just knew” that “the manosphere” IS Andrew Tate. I guess they’ve read a few Guardian Op Ed’s which “proved it”. The “research” was really about using the right terms and peppering a few talking points around so it would seem realistic. If Thorne had really done serious research, he’d have been aware that Reddit has closed down all the Incel subs years before he started looking. Nor did they make any s…
/r/MensRights25/04/25 01:02 PM
5

That’s a fair summary of how they present it.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 12:55 PM
6

I’d broadly agree with that. There’s plenty to criticise in that show, but the strip search scene isn’t one of them.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 12:52 PM
3

According to the show if you use a particular emoji of a particular colour, you’re calling that person “an incel”. No idea of how true it is. But since Thorne claimed he’s looked at all these Incel subs on Reddit as part of his “research” (in 2023/24 long after the admins closed them all down) I question how accurate a lot of their stuff is.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 12:50 PM
5

I don’t think you understand it either. They’re explicitly blaming it on “the manosphere”. In the last episode, after he changes his plea to guilty, and the parents have to accept their son really is a murderer, they wail on about how he used to come home from school and shut himself in his room, and be on his computer all hours - hint hint, devouring all this “harmful content” that turned him into a murderer. The incel emoji on his Instagram was at most the spark. And it’s clear in interviews t…
/r/MensRights25/04/25 11:20 AM
5

Of course it was the police. He was in the police station and it was part of the processing before they came to the interview stage. And to “elaborate”, the father (played by one of the writers, Graham) objected to it, but was told by their solicitor (duty council if you prefer) that the police had the right to demand this for such a serious crime no matter the age. TBH it was one thing the show actually did well. It wasn’t “kiddy porn”, it is something that might happen to a juvenile facing suc…
/r/MensRights25/04/25 11:11 AM
2

How is it “antibullying”? Jamie is a murderer. The final episode was very explicit in laying the blame on that “terrible content” he’d have been looking at every night online whilst he was shut in his room. It’s clearly an anti-manosphere show. With a side mention of social media in general.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 11:06 AM
1

Only if filmed and broadcast, which it wasn’t. The search was “off screen”, and the camera was pointed at the father to show his reaction. There’s plenty of valid complaints about the show, but this isn’t one of them.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 11:03 AM
4

It was not shown on screen - the camera was on the “father” during the strip search. You could hear them giving those directions but not see it. It’s highly unlikely the actor was stripped at all, and it certainly wasn’t shown.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 11:02 AM
1

The show is a clear attack on men’s rights. Specifically they’re claiming online discussions of men’s rights issues are turning 13 year olds into murderers, and it’s clearly aimed at shutting it down. However that scene is NOT one of the parts to take issue with. It is a fairly normal police procedure, and it was written and presented as “confronting” to ram home the disturbing reality of a 13 year old stabbing a 13 year old girl to death. And it also builds sympathy for Jamie to increase the im…
/r/MensRights25/04/25 11:00 AM
2

True. The show has many weaknesses, and much to criticise. This isn’t one of those things.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 10:54 AM
2

Quite right. There’s plenty of things to criticise in the show. However this isn’t one of them. My issue isn’t really with the show: it’s the assertion that it’s some kind of documentary or in depth analysis that can be used to set law and policy. It’s ridiculous that anyone seriously argues this, and regards people who do as any thing less than an ignorant twit. It reminds me of a guy who was asserting that aliens definitely exist, and then saying “haven’t you watched Star Trek”??? Alien life i…
/r/MensRights25/04/25 10:53 AM
2

I think they see it as somehow giving backing to a show which is essentially propaganda against the whole concept of there being men’s rights issues. So it’s a knee jerk reaction. He’s quite right of course. There’s plenty of things to criticise the show for, and absolutely the way it’s being exploited and talked about. But this isn’t one of them.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 10:48 AM
1

It’s well made. The writing is fairly tight and can retain attention; the camera work is good; and the acting is pretty much excellent throughout. Especially from the kid who plays Jamie. However the approach to the issues is limited, shallow and prescriptive. It actually gives no sense of why Jamie got drawn to this “terrible content” at all. The only backstory is: he’s bad at soccer and his father was ashamed of him; his father has got a bad temper and so was a bad example; the teachers are bu…
/r/MensRights25/04/25 10:46 AM
6

Do you even know what an incel is? It’s generally used as a catch all for someone who has issues with feminism and the feminist agenda these days. Or a label to put onto any young male who “acts out”.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 10:38 AM
15

In the show they strip searched him, and could be heard telling him to do this. However it wasn’t shown on screen. And the actor wasn’t actually made to do this.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 10:36 AM
16

Oh the message is clear: watch the boys and make sure they don’t get into “the manosphere” or they’ll turn into murdering monsters too. No mention of why he was drawn to it other than he sucked at soccer and his dad was ashamed of him. Oh and the dad had a bad temper.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 10:12 AM
5

It’s explicitly said he’s going through it. But it is off camera.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 10:08 AM
1

The cops weren’t “uncomfortable”. Just the father and Jamie.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 10:07 AM
7

They had the camera on the father (played by one of the writers). And you could hear the police say to do that. However they did not show a naked 13 year old
/r/MensRights25/04/25 10:06 AM
5

They gave him a strip search. So in the show they definitely made him do it.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 10:05 AM
12

The “defenders” of the show take things at least as much “out of context”.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 10:03 AM
17

The father was “uncomfortable” with the strip search. The police were not.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 10:02 AM
0

GoT has incidents based on British history: from the War of the Roses, to Hadrian’s Wall, to the Glen Coe massacre. Joffrey was based on Richard II etc. But Westeros and the whole setting are clearly a fantasy world. No one has ever referred to it as a “documentary”, nor would they act as if it’s some sort of in depth “social analysis”. Nor would any one seriously propose new laws and policies based on it. And they do all these things for Adolescence.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 09:10 AM
7

According to Graham, who originated the idea, it was “inspired” by two cases: one was a black teen (a 17 year old) who stabbed the friend of his ex (so not an incel either). The victim was also black for what it’s worth, although she seems to be have been born in Britain whilst he was an immigrant. The other one was an alternation between two groups in Liverpool. Closer in ages, but still very different to the storyline. And no evidence “the manosphere” or Andrew Tate had anything to do with eit…
/r/MensRights25/04/25 08:59 AM
3

Did you watch the whole thing? The claim is that he was “radicalised” by “the manosphere”. That he was shutting himself in his room and watching all this “harmful content” and being turned into a killer. And the writers have made this explicitly clear this is the case in interviews.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 08:53 AM
1

And plenty of others treat it as a documentary. The writers are to blame, claiming it’s based of “real cases”.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 08:50 AM
1

Oh but he was an accessory to murder, having given Jamie the murder weapon, and the black girl “obviously” knew it, although she refused to say anything to the police. I guess it was all supposed to reinforce the idea that adults have no idea what’s going on, but all the teens do. A pity the writers didn’t apply the “lesson” to themselves.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 08:29 AM
3

If it were that central it would have finished in Episode 2, when he finds out about it, and his son feeds him that stuff about the “80:20 rule”, the meaning of emojis and some vague references to PUA stuff. It’s also in this episode that Tate gets named (and blamed) along with the “dreaded manosphere” in general. And don’t forget she was bullied first, and worst, when someone posted a topless picture of her on line, which Jamie thought he could take advantage of. It’s there to give Jamie some s…
/r/MensRights25/04/25 08:00 AM
8

It’s not a bad production. Just so long as it’s seen as a work of fiction, and not some definitive study on social trends or documentary on school violence.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 07:42 AM
3

Actually you did, lost girl. You said 12 MEN in the US decided on women’s “reproductive rights”. Also a Quick Look at the named members of Cabinet shows there are 11 women and 11 men. And of the other attendees, there are 3 men and 3 women. I don’t know where they got the 26% figure from, but it doesn’t seem to fit the actual composition of Starmer’s Cabinet.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 07:13 AM
3

You mean the US Supreme Court? There are 9 of them, NOT 12. And of that 9, 4 are women! If you can’t even get these basic facts right (and they’re very easy to find out) why should anyone pay attention to your other assertions? The Supreme Court is a court of law too. It’s not (at least it shouldn’t be) an advocacy organisation. What you think if NOW was run by men? If “Feminist Majority” was run by men? And these groups were simply deciding what women’s interests were, and doing so on the basis…
/r/MensRights25/04/25 06:55 AM
23

And of course The Feminist Daily is eager to promote it. They also previously called FDS “empowering” too don’t forget.
/r/MensRights25/04/25 06:45 AM
4

Turning Movember into a tool of feminist manipulation is NOT helping men. It’s turning an organisation that promotes itself as helping men into one that is funding a feminist agenda. These are not women helping men. We’re not talking about a few women “helping out” or “providing support”. They utterly dominate the leadership group - more than 3/4 of those running this “men’s group” are women. And most likely feminist women. How do you feel about a “group of men” telling women what being a woman …
/r/MensRights25/04/25 04:50 AM
12

But but but “believe all women”…”women never lie”…”intersectionality”…
/r/MensRights24/04/25 10:41 AM
7

I often wonder if these people are just stupid in not wondering why the “manosphere” has taken off in recent years, and that just perhaps they need to see what has happened away from the manosphere that makes it resonate. Or if they actually understand the reason well enough but don’t like the answer and assume they can just suppress it.
/r/MensRights24/04/25 08:36 AM
17

Have a look at the leadership: it’s run by (feminist) women these days. At best they’ll be promoting what feminism has decided men should do. At worst, they’ll be using the organisation as yet another tool to promote the wider feminist agenda. It’s pretty clear which it is!
/r/MensRights24/04/25 08:28 AM
1

Just because they don’t use the term “pick up artist” doesn’t mean it’s not claiming to teach ways to win over women. In any case I’m not the one who claimed that’s what it was.
/r/MensRights24/04/25 06:40 AM
53

Yes indeed. I had a look when it was revealed here they were funding “anti toxic masculinity” courses in Australia, which was part of the Federal Government’s anti-DV policy (drawn up by feminists of course). And as you said, the vast majority of those calling the shots at this “men’s wellbeing” organisation were women, and most likely feminist women at that. Clearly they were converting an organisation that had previously focused on raising money and awareness of men’s health issues like prosta…
/r/MensRights24/04/25 06:06 AM
15

Sadly it isn’t the 1st of April. Claiming screening Adolescence in schools is “helping boys wellbeing” is the sort of stupid you’d only expect to see in an April Fools prank!
/r/MensRights24/04/25 05:57 AM
2

I’ve tended to notice transwomen crapping on men rather than transmen. They are generally ones who don’t present very well - one in particular wore a poor 1950’s wig, 1950’s jewellery and dress styles, and had extra thick makeup. But just looked like a man in drag. And was presenting to a group of feminists how bad men are “and I thought I was one of the good ones”! Some are just hating on men because they were so desperate to be women they hated having a male body. And I suspect a large number …
/r/MensRights24/04/25 05:53 AM
2

The wage gap you’ve just quoted is a lie. Women do NOT get paid 85% of what a man earns for the same job. That’s actually illegal. What feminists do is mislead. In Australia the department that produces this “data” admitted it’s by industry or company rather than the job. So for airlines they lump pilots and cabin crew in the one category of “flight crew” and claim women are badly paid because they’re the majority of the cabin crew. That’s deliberately misleading and these women claimed it’s ok …
/r/MensRights24/04/25 04:18 AM
9

I think boys can already recognise “manipulation tactics” by the ongoing feminist indoctrination they’re subjected to in schools and wider society. That is, in fact, why they’re turning to “the manosphere” as it is free of feminist manipulation and doesn’t try to tell them how “privileged” they are even as they see the girls being favoured! Who is this BS written for? Feminists, who are so sure they have a monopoly on truth, goodness and virtue that anything that isn’t feminist has to be harmful…
/r/MensRights24/04/25 03:54 AM
11

Dead right. Although I suspect these particular women are self identified feminists!
/r/MensRights24/04/25 03:48 AM
11

I’m not sure of how close UK Movember is to the Australian one in administration. Movember did originate here so the Australian organisation may have a lot of influence. One thing is clear, the Australian organisation is captured by feminists. That was clear when they announced they were earmarking millions of dollars to “anti-toxic masculinity” drives by our feminist influenced Federal Government. And a quick check of their leadership shows that this “men’s wellbeing” organisation is run by wom…
/r/MensRights24/04/25 03:47 AM
20

Reading that little spiel, you’d think the “problems young men face” are these “harmful content providers”. And apparently nothing else! What is totally missing from any of this so-called “conversation” that Graham and Thorne were supposed to be trying to start is any indication at all of why kids (and we are talking about actual kids, Jamie was 13 and deliberately presented to make him look like a little boy) are attracted to this kind of content in the first place. The closest is some vague id…
/r/MensRights24/04/25 03:40 AM
82

Love the way they claim showing this in schools is “supporting young men”!
/r/MensRights24/04/25 02:38 AM
1

I think “non-white Incels” become “honorary whites” by virtue of their inceldom!
/r/MensRights24/04/25 01:15 AM
2

Speed dating was the term used. That’s not “Basic Social Skills 101”. Look Incels, and many others, could benefit from an effective course in social skills, presenting the “right way”, how to “read the room” and “read body language” etc. But this is not something you can do in a couple of hours in a school room or gym. And perhaps 20% of Incels are on the autism spectrum. A one size fits all approach is not likely to be helpful for them. If it happens at all, it’ll be a bit of “feelgoodism” for …
/r/MensRights24/04/25 12:47 AM
10

Quite right. And that’s a big part of my problem with feminism. They deny such women exist, or try to claim “there’s so few it doesn’t matter”. And they constantly push for changes that enable these people and oppose safeguards.
/r/MensRights24/04/25 12:35 AM
1

He’s supposedly an academic. So this is a side hustle! And he is certainly exploiting the idea they’re these “terrorists in the making” to promote his for profit “solution”! Incels certainly need and should have some support from the community. This isn’t it though.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 03:28 PM
2

Not surprised at all. That was my first thought when I read the article.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 03:25 PM
7

And a guaranteed fail for someone who is already lacking self confidence and struggles in dating. It’s a waste of time at best. It will utterly humiliate those it’s supposed to help at worst.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 03:12 PM
4

He’s definitely touting for business. The media are presumably trying to make out “the experts” have a solution to draw young guys away from Tate and the dreaded “manosphere”. Otherwise all they have is censorship.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 03:10 PM
5

More likely they just claim it worked in Singapore. I do recall many years ago seeing them show a Singapore TV commercial telling guys to “approach and ask out” the pretty girl they see. They kind of flies in the face of the post #Metoo attitude that any approach is “harassment” doesn’t it. Besides Singapore is famous for a low crime rate, including sexual crimes. So I wouldn’t be surprised if women there are less fearful anyway. And that helps with not being seen as “creepy”.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 03:06 PM
3

I don’t know, maybe they’ll get lucky. More likely it will encourage some to be even more humiliated by repeating a tired old formula become some clown at the school told them it would work.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 03:00 PM
1

The way this will be implemented (if it actually is) will almost certainly be terrible. It will be the standard school approach to a “social problem”. Some “visiting expert” will show up, or the teachers will be handed a bunch of materials. Then there will be a load of gross generalisations; a heap of cliches; a few “examples” and likely a few videos of scripted tales - like “look what happens when you do this vs when you approach like that”. And of course the “right way” will have a wonderful o…
/r/MensRights23/04/25 02:55 PM
4

How’s an arm waving session with tired out, cliched “opening lines” going to cause there to be fewer “anti social freaks”? If anything these guys will try this stuff out, fail because it’s scripted and doesn’t fit their personality type (and the women they approach are repulsed by them and feel they can do better) are going to be even more resentful because they followed the rules, did what they were taught and still end up humiliated and alone. What do you think the outcome of that’s likely to …
/r/MensRights23/04/25 02:43 PM
8

Might be a “nice little earner” for someone like him to draft up a waste of time course, and the government to implement it so they can pretend to be doing something about the issue.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 02:36 PM
2

He’s issue is human population. And the fact it’s grown dramatically over his lifetime. Remember he was born in 1926, when the global population was 1.8 billion. A larger population not only increases the size of cities, but demands ever more land be converted from forest and wilderness to agriculture just to feed the population. He also lived through the baby boom with Earlich and others and their fears of the population bomb. So he’s like so many others: still fighting yesterday’s battles. Not…
/r/MensRights23/04/25 02:34 PM
11

My take is that they’re dissatisfied. Feminism comes along and tells them this “dissatisfaction” is due to these “centuries of oppression”. And these “centuries of oppression” prove how oppressed women are and how “privileged” men are. And this not only tells women they’re fully justified in their dissatisfaction, but that it’s all men’s fault (or “the patriarchy” so they can kid themselves they’re not actually hating on the men in their lives they claim to care about) but that once feminism suc…
/r/MensRights23/04/25 01:48 PM
12

I’ve always thought that one was hilarious. The white population of apartheid South Africa was a minority. By this logic, they couldn’t have been racist!
/r/MensRights23/04/25 01:34 PM
2

Exactly. The trouble is that crazy and vindictive women are enabled by the government. And the “unpunished rapes” isn’t a counter argument. The reality here is that actual rape victims often don’t want to relive the experience by going to the police and then the court. And so don’t report. Or delay reporting until the forensic evidence to support the allegations are no longer available. Or withdraw allegations rather than have to go through a trial. And feminists with their “believe all women” c…
/r/MensRights23/04/25 01:26 PM
5

It’s like “racist”: a term that actually has meaning but has become a general term of abuse for a position you don’t like or want to have to even consider. For “racist” consider this story. We have a housing crisis in Australia, and have a Federal election. The incumbent government increased immigration to 500,000 a year as soon as Covid restrictions were lifted. Housing (especially rentals) were already tight then, and there certainly hasn’t been construction for enough accommodation for an ext…
/r/MensRights23/04/25 01:13 PM
7

Yes, that will be the response. At first it will be by stealth - deductions if you’re married or cohabiting. Then it will be an open tax. But only on men of course.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 12:22 PM
5

You’ve got a good point there. A woman who marries for a passport is just another type of gold digger. And frequently they can turn on you once they have their residency/citizenship in their pocket and you’re not financing their whims (like supporting their whole family or shipping them over - I’ve seen it happen). There are good women despite the brainwashing. My friend’s wife for instance. She eventually saw her mother’s attempts to poison the relationship for what it was. She now isn’t really…
/r/MensRights23/04/25 12:20 PM
3

They can get sex (at least up to a certain age). But that’s not the same as a relationship.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 12:12 PM
16

I remember years ago being warned about Norwegian women. A coworker has worked in Stavanger for the oil industry and was telling me the upside and downsides. And he warned me to be careful with Norwegian women. They were big on their rights. And if your relationship went south, the laws heavily favoured them in Norway. I never ended up working in Stavanger to find out. TBH it’s a good idea in general to be careful with the women you go with. But when the law is particularly rigged in their favou…
/r/MensRights23/04/25 12:10 PM
5

As a frequent commenter here says: Feminism: Equality, when convenient!
/r/MensRights23/04/25 11:59 AM
2

Actually I got female attention when I was still looking for work. You certainly get attention if you have money though, and there’s plenty of women who are just like that (I know a few). But come on man, we’re talking half the population here.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 11:49 AM
4

It’s all talk. Are there any concrete plans to attract more men into the teacher training courses? Are they just going to direct these guys into secondary schools anyway (almost too late then)? A politician saying “we need more male teachers” is like them saying they want to have more manufacturing; or want less violent crimes and more “respect”. Without a firm and viable plan to achieve these things, it’s a meaningless line. For example one reason why there are so few male teachers now (not the…
/r/MensRights23/04/25 11:39 AM
3

Love the gay guy pontificating about men and relationships with women and how men should provide things for women and not get anything back (it’s “misogyny” to expect it). The POS is gay, he doesn’t have that kind of relationship with women. So it is not an issue that actually affects him at all!!!! He’s clearly speaking over some dumb soft left gay/feminist alliance BS knowing it won’t have negative consequences for him. Except it actually is - it’s guys like this and the feminists that create …
/r/MensRights23/04/25 11:17 AM
6

That’s a fairly common view amongst feminists. I’ve seen so many threads where feminists assert that women arrested for DV were really just “defending themselves”; they include Amber Heard in this. Even if it is “unprovoked” they’ll still say it’s a response to previous violence from the man, or preemptive violence because she was afraid he’d hit her and threaten her life. I never saw a dissenting voice in any of those threads on the feminist subs that were making these claims that was from one …
/r/MensRights23/04/25 07:53 AM
2

The point is that the show is entirely fictional. And the claims that it’s based on “true cases” is actually very misleading. Graham cited two murders as the “inspiration”, neither of which have much in common with the show other than a “boy” stabbed a school aged girl to death. One case was a 17 year old, who was supposedly returning personal belongings to his ex (so not an incel either). He decided his ex and her friend were “disrespecting him” and took a knife for their arranged meeting. And …
/r/MensRights23/04/25 07:37 AM
17

Fictional drama. Don’t let the likes of Starmer, or the authors with their pretence of “it’s all based on true cases” manipulate you into thinking it’s a serious investigation at all.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 05:29 AM
3

Actually I’m responding to YOU at this point. And the thread is really about this rather half baked idea that The Independent is pushing. So sorry, my pointing out that this is superficial, and ignores most of the issues actual incels really deal with (and is directly related to their difficulties with women) isn’t “tangential” but the actual point.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 05:07 AM
4

One. I’m not an incel. Two, what’s wrong with pointing out superficial rubbish when I see it? You don’t honestly think there’s a nice little class that will turn “losers” into the local Chad do you? Incels typically lack a lot of “normal” social skills. To a large extent it’s due to social isolation. But it frequently comes from how they’ve been treated. We’re generally not talking about guys who are happy and successful with a solid circle of friends IRL and are just get tongue tied when seeing…
/r/MensRights23/04/25 04:34 AM
3

One. The “speed dating class” is very much aimed at Incels - it’s a dumb idea really. You don’t conquer shyness and inhibitions in a one off class in school. Two. A “speed dating class” is hardly likely to teach anyone how to make a relationship work. It’s like imagining you know about car maintenance because someone showed you how to start a car! Three. Relationships are a two way street. Even if the guy really works on it, it’s not going to work if she’s not really committed and believes she c…
/r/MensRights23/04/25 04:24 AM
3

That stuff comes from assessments of women in online dating sites rating guys. And it is definitely true for online sites. We should be cautious about extending it beyond that though. I’m not top 10%, and I have had women interested in me. And not just ugly, elderly and obese ones either. Women will go for guys who are less physically attracted if they like their personalities and feel “secure” with them (an older guy told me years ago that what women really look for is security). But this won’t…
/r/MensRights23/04/25 04:13 AM
3

They do. The problem is that they do have legitimate grievances and resentments, which are exploited by feminists and turned into earth shattering issues rather than annoyances or general risks everyone has to some extent. It’s great to blame someone else for all that you find dissatisfying in your own life. Including appalling taste in men. But even now not all women are infected, despite the best efforts of feminists and their allies.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 03:43 AM
10

The point is that they’ve inflated housing costs that women can’t drop out of the workforce for any real length of time to actually have kids. And feminists bluster ignores the impact that pregnancy and childbirth actually has on women (although they “remember” it when it suits them) to imagine they can’t be back at work within a week or two.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 03:38 AM
2

I think they’re too pessimistic, but that comes from the fact dating sites seem to be the main place to form relationships. These sites have way more men than women. It’s like going to a remote mining town - the girls there have their pick! And #Metoo and other “developments” have gradually squashed the alternatives to online dating. And I do think holding a couple of “speed dating classes” is hardly going to be enough.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 03:36 AM
2

It’s a very superficial approach though. And whilst Incel sites may focus on not dating, it’s not the only issue Incels have. They frequently feel rejected by society. They’ve often been set up and made fun of (as some here tried to point out to a passing feminist who made a big deal at an incel’s supposed angry response to a girl who actually was showing interest in him - he presumed it wasn’t real, but a set up to humiliate him more because that’s what he’s used to. The feminist didn’t get it)…
/r/MensRights23/04/25 03:32 AM
3

First of all, this isn’t an Incel Sub (despite what Thorne amongst others thinks - it shows how much he really knows about Incels). And whilst I agree it is a (sort of) attempt to “help”, you can’t just “teach dating techniques” by themselves. Incel discussion boards may heavily focus on being treated badly by women, or ignored or laughed at by women. But approaching women is just part of the issue. It’s like saying you’ll solve feminism by teaching girls Kung Fu. Incels commonly feel they’re sh…
/r/MensRights23/04/25 03:22 AM
4

But what is “speed dating” that they’ll be teaching? What incels typically really need is a sense that they matter and self respect. Women can spot this stuff a mile off. I suspect it’s part of the attraction for “bad boys” because those guys most certainly ooze self confidence. And herein is the great paradox: women are attracted to the personality types that are frequently very selfish (or worse). But they then treat the women in their lives badly. And suddenly this is how all men treat women.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 02:51 AM
2

I guess that’s one take. But it’s a fairly superficial approach.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 02:10 AM
2

To be fair, that’s referring to women on dating sites rather than women in general. And there are typically way more men than women on these sites at any one time, so they’re “spoiled for choice”. However in an era when most relationships start on these applications, it has a very real impact - something I try to point out to feminists and others who blithely dismiss it as a fantasy! However someone clearly repeating standard lines isn’t going to get anywhere. And it won’t work un online dating …
/r/MensRights23/04/25 02:10 AM
27

Agreed. Incels are rapidly becoming society’s scapegoats. They’re already being accused of crimes actually committed by violent youths/men against ex girlfriends and their friends.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 01:43 AM
5

They could become better versions of themselves. A bit more exercise, and learning better social skills (it’s telling that autism is present in such a high number of Incels - but it’s ignored by so many of these self styled “experts” that are coming out of the woodwork. Minority guys are also overrepresented, but you rarely hear about them) would help. At the risk of sounding like Petersen, they need to have all this in place before “dating”, much less “speed dating” can possibly work, because w…
/r/MensRights23/04/25 01:41 AM
2

It’s a BS, throwaway line. Possibly from some grifter who thinks he can cash in on this moral panic caused by an overrated TV show.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 01:35 AM
19

I stopped reading when I got to the “initiation” part of throwing acid into a girl’s face. Vile attacks like that do take place. But they’re typically “retribution” against ex-gfs or other such “punishments” and frequently associated with “certain cultures” that are treated with kid gloves these days. I’ve never heard of any of these related to Incels, and I’ve not doubt we’d have heard no end of it if there were a case. The author has confused these guys with Islamists and criminal gangs with a…
/r/MensRights23/04/25 01:32 AM
5

Well PUAs anyway.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 01:15 AM
20

The irony is that it’s the Government that’s fostered this with its cosseting of feminism, incentivising single motherhood, and favouring women in divorces etc.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 01:15 AM
6

Oh what to say…. A superficial piece, yet again promoting Adolescence (and how does that show “teach” anyone to “resist” anything?). Once again the “Independent” (ownership perhaps, certainly not ideology) is vying with The Guardian for the title The Feminist Daily.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 12:41 AM
1

Well as is often said, if feminists didn’t have double standards they’d have no standards at all.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 12:32 AM
2

They’re right about the “entitled to sex”, but they only apply the standard to men. When women (such as FDS) act in the same way these people who make such an issue about incels claim it’s “empowering”! This is the rotten heart of a great deal of feminism.
/r/MensRights23/04/25 12:31 AM
17

And that’s the irony. Feminism has spawned women who behave in EXACTLY the manner feminists complain about men acting - but they call it “empowering” when women do it! An example of that was The Feminist Daily’s (aka The Guardian) article praising the FDS (Female Dating Strategy) sub. Those women were pretty much the same as the Incels who got banned from Reddit: in feminist terms, they believed they had a right to sex with the opposite sex; that it was the fault of the opposite sex they weren’t…
/r/MensRights22/04/25 11:14 AM
15

It’s always had tendencies that way. Especially amongst the most committed. Feminism is particularly attractive to women who have a problem with men in general. So man haters are far more prevalent amongst feminists than amongst the general female population. At first the “anger” was focused on the assumption women couldn’t do, or weren’t suited to certain roles. But as women entered the roles, the “anger” didn’t subside. Instead it became just ongoing abuse of men and denouncing relationships w…
/r/MensRights22/04/25 11:06 AM
9

DA. It was in NYC.
/r/MensRights22/04/25 08:39 AM
2

Exactly. Those who claim to be opposed to “racism” and “sexism” are those who’ve helped breathe life into this stuff; and the whole concept of primarily judging people by these characteristics. Mostly it’s “rules for thee but not for me”. And it is certainly the case that it’s feminism and its daughter ideologies that are responsible. You can’t keep on saying it’s good and right for men to be discriminated against, for women to be female chauvinists, for women to be favoured by the law, for equa…
/r/MensRights22/04/25 05:24 AM
30

Well, she is an “expert” on domestic abuse after all. Let’s see if the court judges her by the same standards she demands they use for others.
/r/MensRights22/04/25 04:23 AM
10

In Melbourne the main University set up a “Women’s Room” before Covid, due to feminist campaigning. The feminists responsible utterly opposed the idea of a “men’s room” - their justification was “the whole campus is a mens safe space”.
/r/MensRights22/04/25 12:51 AM
12

Yes. And it’s that double standard that enrages me. Especially when the feminists who push this then moan at the “emotional labour” women have to do and demand men set up their own support groups - hey ladies, they used to exist, and you changed them.
/r/MensRights22/04/25 12:06 AM
1

Possibly. Although I suspect it’s more a case of making the right family alliances, or in certain tribal societies it’s about those of status rewarding their own status.
/r/MensRights22/04/25 12:03 AM
2

Yes! Loads of women were “depressed” when that POS was finally executed. The there’s the LA Nightstalker. Loads of young women sent him topless pictures, and tried to initiate a “relationship” with a serial rapist, murderer and child rapist!!! He “smelled like a dead goat” (according to a librarian who interacted with him) and had a mouth full of rotting death. So he was actually physically repulsive as well as a a vial character. And yet… Feminism in its attacks on men refuses to deal with this…
/r/MensRights22/04/25 12:00 AM
10

Apparently we (and the mysterious Patriarchy) are responsible for women wearing high heels. In fact we make them wear heels so high that they’re utterly uncomfortable to wear and deform their feet. Pity, I’m not overly concerned about the shoes a girl wears. It’s not something I pay much attention to when I meet a girl. Indeed those who do pay attention to that, like Quentin Tarantino would probably prefer it if they didn’t wear shoes at all!!! Yet apparently we’re responsible for women’s fashio…
/r/MensRights21/04/25 02:22 PM
4

It’s sad that you often can’t tell the difference between a real feminist Op Ed and ChatGPT.
/r/MensRights21/04/25 02:11 PM
6

I suspect that’s part of it.
/r/MensRights21/04/25 02:10 PM
7

I still see this today.
/r/MensRights21/04/25 02:09 PM
9

Look, I don’t get why women wear such high heels and poor shoes. When I worked in London I’d sometimes drive a female friend of mine home from her place of work and we’d go through some of the nightclub areas of Clapham Common. The streets were crowded with girls heading into clubs, or moving from one club to another. And without exception they were all barefoot and carrying their shoes. I’d remark to my passenger what’s the point of spending all that money on shoes you can’t actually wear? Wome…
/r/MensRights21/04/25 02:07 PM
15

Quite. It keeps reminding me of “Melvin” (Jack Nicholson’s character) in As Good as it Gets: to write a woman, he writes a man and takes away all logic and accountability!!!! That’s obviously how feminists see women from these sort of stupid claims!!!!
/r/MensRights21/04/25 01:57 PM
3

Incel wasn’t originally a slur. But it’s become one. And it’s used by teachers and various other feminists as simply a label to put onto male behaviour (and those supposedly perpetuating it) that they don’t like - if we’re lucky. That appalling show Adolescence is a classic case. In their “blaming” of “the manosphere” (which they love to portray as “alt right”, mostly because they associate “the left” with feminism and it’s daughter ideologies these days - look at how working class men have sudd…
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates21/04/25 01:49 PM
11

It’s very convenient to blame me for the poor choices women make collectively. It’s well established that men generally prefer women to wear fairly low levels of makeup. Yet feminists routinely blame men for the money women spend on the cosmetics industry (which is one industry that is fairly female dominated btw at least in terms of founders). Women are attracted to the “bad boys”? Oh well that’s the “patriarchy” telling girls that if a boy treats them bad it’s because they like them! But who i…
/r/MensRights21/04/25 01:41 PM
20

Love the way they it’s “men” and “the patriarchy” that “forces” women to wear high heels. It’s not social pressure from (gasp) other women that does it????
/r/MensRights21/04/25 08:49 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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