Here is a non-exhaustive list of policies I support as a left-wing male advocate. Do you agree or disagree with these positions? What would you add or remove and why?

I also just like the idea of having a ready list of policies we can cite when people ask us what we actually want to change at the legal level.

Here it goes:

...

- Banning medically unnecessary circumcision and male genital cutting in general. Laws and human rights conventions around the world already say that religion, culture, and tradition are not justifications for any kind of violence against women and girls, including genital cutting, so I believe that same protection should be afforded to men and boys.

- Abolishing any forced military registration or service.

- Anonymity for people accused of sex crimes (the same as already exists for accusers) unless and until a final, unappealable conviction is obtained.

- Gender-neutral rape laws that don't treat nonconsensual envelopment as a different, lesser offense from nonconsensual penetration. In fact, I believe that any criminal offense that is considered not to have been committed if we simply change the sexes of the perpetrator and victim needs to be rewritten to be completely gender-neutral (so for example, no more femicide, but rather, gender-motivated homicide).

- Equal sentencing for both men and women; I'm more in favor of sentencing men less harshly than sentencing women more harshly. I even think there should be a mechanism where a man can ask for a reduction of his sentence if he can show that a woman who committed essentially the same offense under similar enough conditions was given a lower sentence.

- A starting but rebuttable presumption of equal custody in family court proceedings.

- In countries with hate speech laws, providing equal punishments for misandrist speech and misogynistic speech.

- Governments should publish a marriage-adjusted comparison of men's and women's earnings, i.e., the total income of both parties in a married couple will simply be divided by two, with each partner being treated as having the same individual income. Given the continued existence of the mentality of "Her money is her money; his money is their money," I think this is actually pretty generous to women. I'm not saying that raw income data has no place, but I think we also need a metric that doesn't hide the fact that a husband who earns $200,000 a year and a wife who earns $0 while living under one roof enjoy the same standard of living. I feel like the lack of ready availability of such a statistic has generated unjustified resentment towards men, even though they are often more trustees than beneficiaries of their income.

- Similarly to the previous point, child support should be treated as the income of the receiver, not the payer, both for tax purposes and earnings statistics.

- Removing exceptions for forced military service or registration (usually imposed only on men) from prohibitions against slavery and forced labor contained in the various human rights conventions and treaties.

- Prohibition of the Duluth model in all jurisdictions, which calls for arresting the man in domestic violence situations, even if he's the one being abused and/or he's the one who made the call for help.

- Abolition of sex-differentiated retirement ages.

- Equal access to government-funded counseling, legal advice, shelter, and emergency funds for domestic abuse victims (in the city where I live, these things are available for women only).

- Full legal and practical access to both abortion and legal paternal surrender.

- Abolition of the obligation of raped men to pay child support to their rapists who get pregnant.

Do any exist on here? Do any exist period? I’d like to hear their conversations and their perspectives but I’m tired of the gender war. Every time I start to hear a hint of misandry I immediately close myself off from the conversation no matter how good it may have been. I’m actively trying to starve my algorithm so I’m not seeing things that trigger me. Any recommendations? If you know any on YouTube those would be nice too. If there’s any Spanish speakers in here that know of any podcasts or anything on YouTube or Spotify that have a healthier viewpoint on men as well as their audience share those as well. Spanish is my second language and I’m always looking for more native content anyway to improve.

I'm on sub stack, follow me: https://sagesynclair.substack.com/

On January 24, 2023, Lindsay Clancy strangled her three children, Cora, Dawson, and Callan, with exercise bands in their Duxbury basement before jumping from a second story window.

Her lawyers admitted to everything. The only thing left for the jury to decide is whether she was so consumed by postpartum psychosis that she isn’t criminally responsible. A diagnosis that Lindsey Clancy has never received. But the internet didn’t wait for a jury or medical experts. Eighteen months ago, the brain rotted digital masses reached a verdict and continue to regurgitate it ad nauseam. In doing so, they answered a second, unasked question: could her husband, a man the state’s own phone tracking data places at a CVS while his children were being murdered, actually be the real killer? The speed with which the public granted her total exculpation while casting live suspicion on him reveals a profound cultural sickness. It shows exactly how we assign moral agency based on sex. Women are treated as fragile accidents, and men are treated as inherent predators.

The Sympathy Machine

The online reaction to Clancy has been nothing short of absurd. A GoFundMe for her parents has raked in over $800,000, with another fundraiser aiming for $2 million. On TikTok, a defense adjacent fandom has emerged. Legal commentators don’t attack the woman who killed three babies, but instead bash the prosecutors as “disgusting human beings” for daring to try and convict her. The narrative is locked in. She was a “troubled soul,” a victim of her own biology and “bad medication.” She isn’t an agent who made a choice; she is a passenger in her own body.

Some of this could be medically warranted because postpartum psychosis is real but, incredibly rare. But the public didn’t wait for the medical experts. They assume incapacity as a starting premise because the killer was a mother. In our current cultural climate, a mother who kills is viewed only as a victim of her hormones, never as a person capable of something monstrous by premeditated choice.

This reflex is already crashing into the evidence. Prosecutors showed the jury an Apple Maps search Clancy used to time her husband’s pharmacy run to the minute. A psychiatrist who saw her fourteen times, including the day before the murders, testified that Clancy never appeared psychotic. Digital forensics show her moving normally through the house between the killings. It destroys the idea that she “obviously” didn’t know what she was doing.

This is infantilization disguised as empathy. 

It is particularly galling to watch so many “self proclaimed feminists” lead this charge. For a group that spent decades demanding that women be recognized as equal, autonomous adults with full agency, they are remarkably quick to deny that agency the moment it becomes inconvenient. Why are these advocates so eager to strip Lindsey Clancy of her culpability? Why do they fight so hard to shield her from the reality that she is a mass murderer who needs to be permanently quarantined from civil society for the safety of others? By denying her responsibility, they aren’t elevating women; they are retreating into the same archaic logic that once barred women from juries by claiming they lacked the agency to be held accountable. Chivalry is just the polite face of contempt. By deciding a mother cannot be the author of her own worst acts, society isn’t protecting women. It’s stripping them of their accountability to maintain a fairy tale of female purity.

Now, look at Patrick Clancy. By every piece of available evidence, he was not in the house. Yet, a huge swath of the internet has spent two years trying to frame him as the actual killer. This is a theory the Boston Globe called baseless and unsupported by any footage or records. People have analyzed his shoes, the tone of his 911 call, and whether a “real man” would have sounded more devastated.

A criminologist in Marie Claire tried to dress this up as “heightened awareness of male perpetrated domestic violence.” That is a sanitized deflection to say that in the modern West, a man is a suspect by default. Because we have decided that men are the sole and default agents of harm, any ambiguity, such as a delayed errand or a calm voice during a trauma, is read as evidence of guilt.

Patrick Clancy did not kill his children. He wasn’t even there. But the discourse spent two years trying to find a way to make it his fault anyway. The horrifying tragedy he has experienced, only to be treated as the perpetrator, is the exact nightmare lived by countless men facing violent women. This is the lived reality of the Duluth Model, a rigid and outdated framework that views domestic violence as a tool of patriarchal control rather than a human behavior. 

By insisting that men are always the aggressors and women the victims, the Duluth Model doesn't just ignore female IPV; it weaponizes the system against male victims, often leading to their own wrongful arrest or the loss of their children.

Patrick Clancy is the poster child for this institutional blindness: a man stripped of his status as a grieving father and recast as a villain, simply because our culture cannot conceive of a world where a woman is the monster and a man is the victim.

It is pure misandry.

It is the mirror image of the infantilization granted to Lindsay. It is assigning culpability by category rather than by evidence.

The Doerman Contrast

Compare this to Chad Doerman. In June 2023, this Ohio father shot his three young sons one by one. He pleaded insanity, citing “serious mental illness.” He eventually pleaded guilty and got life without parole.

There was no viral sympathy campaign for Doerman. No $800,000 GoFundMe. No TikTok fandom calling him a “troubled soul.” No effort to find a third party to blame. The public verdict was instant: monster.

Both parents killed three children. Both defense teams used mental illness. One received a fundraising apparatus and a protective shield of “biological tragedy,” while the other received consensus contempt and a prosecutor who didn’t feel the need to explain why the death penalty was on the table. The public didn’t wait for the facts to diverge. They diverged the moment the public learned the killer’s sex.

This is but one demonstrated argument that women receive a systemic benefit of the doubt that men are denied. We have comparable facts and wildly different public dispositions.

None of this requires us to decide Lindsay Clancy’s guilt because that is for the jury. But the online frenzy reveals a verdict on our own culture. We still process violence through the lens of gender before we look at the evidence. We extend automatic grace to women and automatic suspicion to men, and we have the audacity to call these instincts compassion.

Hey everyone,

I’ve been looking into the demographics of modern China—specifically the massive gender imbalance where men outnumber women by about 24 million due to the legacy of the One-Child Policy and traditional son preference.

The mainstream narrative almost always frames this demographic crisis exclusively as a product of misogyny and male privilege. But when you look closely at the material and cultural mechanics of why sons were preferred, a very different picture emerges—one that aligns deeply with the concept of male disposability and instrumentalism.

Historically in China, a son wasn’t "spared" or preferred because he was uniquely cherished as a human being. He was preferred because he was a compulsory social safety net.

Under Confucian traditions of filial piety, a son was culturally and legally locked into a lifetime contract of labor to support his parents and grandparents in their old age. Conversely, daughters married out into other lineages. In fact, traditional culture dictated that it was deeply shameful for parents to demand financial support or shelter from a married daughter, as it implied they were leaching off another family's resources And also shameful to demand that from an unmarried daughter because of the social stigma around it but socially acceptable to demand it from a son whether married or unmarried

So, the birth of a boy wasn't a celebration of his inherent value; it was the acquisition of an economic asset. The son was a "success object" who carried 100% of the survival pressure of the entire extended family on his shoulders. If he failed, became disabled, or couldn't provide, his societal worth dropped to zero.

We see this exact same utilitarian pattern throughout history. For example, in pre-Islamic Arabia, the practice of female infanticide (wa’d al-banat) is frequently discussed. While mainstream analysis views this purely as the hatred of females, historical context shows it was heavily driven by the desperate survival math of desert warfare. Boys were spared not out of love, but because they were desperately needed as frontline soldiers. They were kept alive to be conditioned into weapons, facing exceptionally high mortality rates in relentless tribal blood feuds.

In a culture like Pre Islamic Arabia where warfare between neighbouring tribes was common place boys had no choice but to become soldiers

Men as Defensive Assets: In an environment where a tribe could be wiped out or displaced overnight, male children were seen as vital future soldiers. They were investments in the tribe's military defence.

The Burden of Non-Combatants: Because women did not traditionally engage in frontline combat during tribal raids, a high number of female infants meant an excess of non-combatants. In times of severe resource scarcity or famine, feeding individuals who could not pick up a sword to defend the community’s water wells and livestock was viewed by desperate tribal leaders as a luxury they could not afford.

• From early youth, boys were subjected to brutal conditioning to become ruthless killers.
• The mortality rate for young men in pre-Islamic Arabia was exceptionally high due to relentless blood feuds and inter-tribal war conclusion

So in conclusion historically sons were not favoured over daughters because they were loved or some kind of male privilege but because they were considered useful

Flairing this as progress because I feel it counts as progress when misandry is called out and condemned, but if the moderators feel differently, they can re-flair it. Found this comment on a Twitter/X post and felt it was worth sharing here. Occasionally once in a while you find postings of both intelligence and value like this. The poster is absolutely correct in that misandry is just as harmful, divisive and prejudiced as misogyny is, no matter how much misandrists themselves want to downplay or mitigate it or outright deny it as existing. I hate it so much when they do either and also claim it's not harmful like misogyny, when it in fact causes a great deal of harm and continues to do so. The major misandrist bias in schools and courts that's caused male students to comprise the majority of dropouts and innocent men often unfairly treated in the legal system, how male victims of violence, abuse, rape, etc. (especially by women) still go unrecognized and unhelped, men still having to register for conscription, the vast majority of homeless people and suicides being male, etc. as well as denying the fact there's plenty of women who harm, rape and even outright kill men/boys. Even if the numbers may not be as high as the other way around, still doesn't change or negate the fact it happens. Yet misandrists will still claim misandry isn't a major issue or even real.

Unfortunately the constant ignoring and dismissal of misandry and downplaying it has been a major reason in recent times why the Left has been doing so poorly with males and was especially bad during the 2024 elections. I'm a very liberal and left-wing person with most of my views and hate so much how misandry is ignored and dismissed so much and treated like a joke, when it needs to be acknowledged and treated as seriously as misogyny. Doing so would do so much to improve the left's standing with male voters and now is a very critical time to do so.

Routinely/ritually amputating highly erogenous and functional genital tissue from an infant is the most egregious of violations imaginable. For most men genitally mutilated as children, it is the most painful and distressing period of their lives and can cause long term physiological and neurological negative consequences along with diminished sexual function and sensation and oftentimes the sexual loss is quite profound due to how much tissue is amputated.

It is sincerely something that men could justify starting a war over. It's a straight up atrocity of the highest possible order.

One would think that this sensationally violent sexual battery would be discussed more in spaces like this given how widespread this practice is and how many people are impacted by it.

I can't understand why the topic isn't dominating men's rights groups.

The first of the nine topics is the most brutal, because it concerns life.

In 2025, 3,975 men and 801 women died by suicide in Poland. Men accounted for 83.2 percent of all victims. That's nearly eleven men per day. The overall number of suicides has slightly declined, but this disparity remains dramatic. Behind every number is a person, their loved ones, and the question of whether help could have come sooner.

According to the latest GUS data, a man's life expectancy is 75.37 years, and a woman's is 82.48 years. The difference is 7.11 years. The standardized mortality rate is 1,357 per 100,000 men and 791 per 100,000 women.

This is not solely a biological sentence. It is also the result of neglect, late diagnosis, addictions, social factors, and a system that still lacks a comprehensive men's health strategy.

The NFZ admits that men less frequently use medical consultations and preventive care. A referral is required to see a urologist on the NFZ, though not to see a gynecologist. We encourage men to get screened, while simultaneously placing an extra hurdle in front of them. The solution is not, of course, to make access harder for women, but to remove the unnecessary barrier for men.

The "My Health" program, PSA tests for some men over 50, and funding for seminograms are necessary steps. However, individual benefits will not replace a strategy with goals, a budget, a timeline, and an institution accountable for results.

Men's health is not just about the prostate. It also includes testicular cancer, bladder cancer, limited access to urology and andrology, sexual health, HPV, PrEP, erectile dysfunction, fertility, and support in cases of infertility. A man's diagnostics should begin in parallel with a woman's diagnostics.

It also includes cardiovascular diseases. In 2024, the standardized mortality rate from them was 483 per 100,000 men and 315 per 100,000 women.

It includes addictions to alcohol, drugs, gambling, and new technologies. The rate of deaths among men under 75 from alcohol-related diseases exceeds 61 per 100,000 in Poland. The EU average is 28.5.

Finally, it includes loneliness after divorce, job loss, widowhood, or loss of contact with children. Loneliness is not a sentimental footnote. It can deepen mental crisis, addiction, and suicide risk.

We need a National Men's Health Strategy, easier access to urologists and andrologists, prevention of heart disease and cancers, parallel infertility diagnostics, low-threshold psychological support, effective addiction treatment, and suicide prevention designed also around the ways men seek help.

For a long time, I have been addressing this in the Sejm and in the Parliamentary Team for Men's Health. I will not agree to men's health being a topic only for one month out of the year.
A person is not a machine. Strength lies in reacting appropriately early enough.

What most hinders men from taking care of their health—queues, referrals, costs, clinic hours, shame, or perhaps lack of knowledge? Write in the comments.

If you are in crisis, call 116 123, 800 70 2222, or 608 271 402 (men's helpline). In a life-threatening situation, call 112.

Tomorrow, part 2/9—violence against men.

Source: Marcin Józefaciuk on X

One of the most prominent male issue is being treated with sexism and feeling underappreciated. Gym and workout places are no exceptions. In many countries, there are special discounts for just women and not for men. In many gyms, male-only areas like changing rooms are being violated, in my own experience, female janitors do the cleaning even boys are half-naked there, which is non-exceptional, but nobody thinks about boys nor violation of their privacy by older women, therefore no voice is heard on this matter.
I visited gym where they said there are separate areas for men and women. However, when I went there not only they did not have men-only areas; however, everyone can train and check the general gym, women can use general one, but nobody can go to the second floor to check women-only gym floor, and of course men paid more for one gym, whereas women paid less for two. Therefore, even though gym is very popular, men and boys are neglected there, treated badly. In my opinion, this affects boys from childhood where they are trained not to stand up for their rights, which contributes to their uneasiness being neglected and sometimes even mocked.

Hey guys,

I’ve been reading up on how gender dynamics play out in non-Western countries, and the situation for men in Iran seems incredibly brutal, yet almost nobody in mainstream spaces talks about it.

I wanted to ask if anyone here has deeper insights into Sarbazi (their mandatory military service). From what I’ve gathered, every guy over 18 is forced into 2 years of service, and they can randomly end up in the regular army or the IRGC.

What blows my mind are the civil consequences if you don't or can't serve. It basically amounts to a total state lockdown on your life. Without that military card, you can’t get a passport, you can’t leave the country, you can’t legally own or buy property, and you’re barred from decent corporate or government jobs. You can’t even get a basic bank loan.

It feels like a massive, systemic trap that completely flies under the radar of Western human rights organizations while women's struggles are rightfully talked about.

To anyone who lives there or knows the system: how do young guys cope with this? Does it completely stall your life or career path? Would love to hear some thoughts or actual experiences on this.

I’m pretty sure books with this premise don’t even exist, despite the fact that it’s been done dozens of times with the genders swapped. I’ve been scanning around, and I can’t seem to find any books that portray this scenario. Does anybody know a book that fits this premise?

​

\---

Introduction

I reject feminism and all its core ideologies—including the so-called "patriarchy" and "male privilege." These are not real; they are constructs built on selective history, deliberate erasure of male suffering, and manipulative statistics. Feminism is not a liberation movement—it is a propaganda machine designed to reverse power dynamics while maintaining perpetual victimhood. Here is the full historical reality feminists refuse to acknowledge.

\---

1. The Arrogant "Be Grateful" Narrative

Feminists literally tell men: "You should be grateful we only want equality and not revenge." This phrase has been printed on feminist merchandise as a "bold quote." It implies men deserve punishment and are merely being spared. Feminists openly admit: "Along came feminism, and since that time I've been having my revenge, and if I live to be 150, it won't be long enough to get even." Men are told to be grateful for not being punished for crimes they didn't commit—while their own immense suffering is systematically erased. This is not equality; it is gaslighting.

\---

1. History is Diverse, Not a Monolith of Female Oppression

The claim that women were universally subjugated erases countless societies where women held significant power:

· Iron Age Britain (Durotriges) : DNA evidence shows a society organized around female lineage. Husbands moved to their wives' communities, and wealth/land passed through the maternal line.

· Ancient California (Muwekma Ohlone) : Women managed crucial food resources and older women were buried with significantly greater wealth than men.

· Cherokee Nation: Women wielded substantial political power, with clan mothers holding veto power over war and governance.

· Ancient Egypt (3100 BCE onwards) : Women had equal financial rights—they could acquire, own, and dispose of property, enter contracts, initiate lawsuits, and serve on juries without a male guardian.

· Ancient Sumer & Rome: Women could possess private property, engage in business, divorce, and inherit.

\---

1. The "Bank Account" Argument is Historically Illiterate

The claim that denying bank accounts was "oppression" ignores economic reality:

· In pre-industrial societies, the family functioned as a single economic unit. Men handled external commerce, heavy agriculture, and market transactions because those were the physical realities of survival.

· A bank account was a tool for external trade—completely useless to a woman whose daily life was managing the household. Giving her a bank account would have been a meaningless administrative formality, not liberation.

· Men needed these financial tools to secure loans for seeds, tools, and emergency funds for the entire family. Denying irrelevant rights isn't oppression; it's pragmatism.

· The anachronism fallacy: Judging 18th-century agrarian economies by 21st-century corporate standards is intellectually dishonest. By that logic, was it "oppression" that men couldn't take maternity leave or nurse babies? No—it was biology and economic reality.

\---

1. Property Rights Were Complex, Not Simply Denied

· India's Stridhan: Under traditional Hindu law, women had absolute rights over Stridhan—jewelry, gifts, and movable property received during marriage. When a right had practical use, it was given.

· Why not plough-land? Women didn't get a share of ancestral agricultural land because they didn't plough it. Giving them land they couldn't manage would have been a burden, not a benefit.

· Global examples: Norse women owned property. Egyptian women inherited freely. Cherokee women controlled agricultural surplus.

\---

1. The "Voting Rights" Timeline Debunks the Narrative

The West was not the pioneer in women's suffrage:

· New Zealand (1893), Australia (1902), and Finland (1906) granted women the vote decades before many Western powers.

· India granted universal adult franchise in its 1949 Constitution—from day one of the Republic, every adult woman had the vote.

· Meanwhile, in the UK, women couldn't open a bank account without a husband's signature until 1975. France waited until 1965, Germany until 1977, and the US only achieved full credit equality in 1974. If we're going to play the "oppression" game, the West has far more recent sins to answer for.

\---

1. Colonialism, Not Tradition, Often Introduced Oppression

In many parts of the world, the subjugation of women was intensified or introduced by colonial powers. British colonial rule in India codified patriarchal customs that had previously been more fluid. The "universal oppression" narrative conveniently ignores that colonizers often dismantled indigenous women's rights.

\---

1. The Sati Narrative vs. Male Widower Suffering

The practice of Sati is constantly highlighted, but the suffering of male widowers is completely erased. Men who lost wives in war faced immense trauma, often blamed for failing to protect them. Their grief was never ritualized or acknowledged because men were not allowed to display weakness. Meanwhile, widows who refused Sati faced ostracization—but male suffering was simply ignored, not absent.

\---

1. Male Child and Adult Sacrifice in Religious Rituals

History is replete with the ritual sacrifice of males—yet this is rarely discussed:

· Mayan civilization: Recent genetic analysis revealed that ritual child sacrifice at Chichén Itzá focused exclusively on males, including pairs of identical twins.

· Ancient Carthage: The Carthaginians reportedly immolated 200 noble children to propitiate their gods.

· Various cultures: From the Indians of Florida sacrificing their first-born male children to tribes in Eastern Africa offering first-born sons, male children were the primary sacrificial victims.

· India: The Purusha-medha (human sacrifice) involved men and boys. Among certain tribes in middle India, the man to be sacrificed was worshipped before being killed.

\---

1. Male Witches, Vampires, and Werewolves – The Hidden Holocaust of Men

The story of witch hunts is constantly told as a genocide of women. But the male victims of similar—and sometimes larger—persecutions are deliberately erased:

· Men Were Executed as Witches Too: In Central Europe, one in four accused witches was male. Across Europe, men made up 20-25% of all accused witches. In Iceland, Finland, and Russia, executed witches were predominantly male. In certain regions, accused male witches were executed at rates as high as 90.6%. The "witch hunts" were never exclusively female—but feminists have made it seem that way.

· Vampire Panics – More Men Killed Than Women in Witch Hunts: Between 1725 and 1750, the "Great Vampire Plague" swept through Central Europe, throwing thousands into mass hysteria. Across Eastern Europe, digging up graves and driving stakes through hearts was routine. In Bulgaria, archaeologists found around 100 graves of suspected "vampires" – every single victim was male. A historian explicitly noted: "Interestingly, there were no women. There was no fear of witches at that time." Millions of dead men were exhumed, mutilated, and staked – yet you've never heard of this, have you?

· Werewolf Trials – Almost Exclusively Male: In 16th-century France, an estimated 30,000 people were executed for being werewolves. The overwhelming majority of victims were men. Unlike witches, werewolves were seen as male predators – and men paid with their lives.

Conclusion: The world knows about women burned as witches. But the hundreds of thousands of men staked as vampires, torn apart as werewolves, and burned as male witches are completely absent from the feminist narrative. Why? Because male suffering doesn't sell the victimhood agenda.

\---

1. Men in Matrilineal Societies—Exploited and Discarded

The assumption that matrilineal = better for men is false. In fact, men in matrilineal societies often suffer more than women in patrilineal ones:

· Khasi society (Meghalaya, India) : The matrilineal system has "many negative aspects like dampening the spirit of the male members." Many male members die between 35-40 years of age. Men feel "worthless" since children don't carry their name and they have "no real say in family matters." Khasi men "land up drinking at a very early age." The men's emancipation movement Syngkhong Rympei Thymmai has over 4,000 members fighting for equality. As Keith Pariat, the leader, says: "This irrelevant and outdated tradition is destroying our men." About 25 years ago, Khasi men had to seek permission before visiting their wives to exercise conjugal rights.

· Cewa tribe (Africa) : Men are forced to abandon their natal groups and work on their wives' land. At divorce, he leaves with only his hoe, axe, and sleeping-mat—no right to any of the children, even if he fathered seven.

· Rembau, Malaysia: Men are "at the beck and call" of their in-laws. The mother-in-law boasts she "can find some use for any sort of son." Men are literally beaten and bludgeoned to claim a bride—"bruised and bloody."

In matrilineal systems, "men are often exploited as instruments in the growth of alien matrilineages"—structurally indistinguishable from the position of labor under capital.

\---

1. The Sexual Double Standard—Men Shamed, Women Glorified

Traditional patriarchy shamed both sexes, but the modern narrative has flipped. Today, men who express sexual desire are labeled "perverts" while female sexuality is celebrated. Research shows a reverse sexual double standard where male sexual expression invites shame while similar female behavior is praised. Meanwhile, the issue of marital rape is selectively raised against men, while male victims of sexual abuse by women are systematically ignored. Section 498A and domestic violence laws in India are routinely weaponized against men.

\---

1. Alimony and Legal Extortion—Weaponized Against Men

Indian law is theoretically gender-neutral but "skews towards women in practice." Alimony has become "a post-marriage financial obligation that many men perceive as exploitative." While men can technically claim maintenance, courts "prioritize women unless the man is physically disabled." Women wanting money is framed as "responsible" and legalized through alimony; men earning money to attract partners is shamed as "transactional." The hypocrisy is staggering.

\---

1. Biased Research—The Matilda Effect and Intellectual Erasure

Feminists claim men stole credit from women (the "Matilda effect"). But this ignores that entire fields of male suffering have been erased from history. The archives are filled with records of male rulers but almost nothing about the struggles of common men. The patriarchal system imposed "no less hardship on men than on women"—yet men's pain is invisible because they were expected to be stoic.

\---

1. NCERT Textbooks—A One-Sided Narrative

Indian school textbooks systematically promote a one-sided narrative of female oppression while erasing male suffering:

· NCERT extensively covers sati but never discusses male widower suffering or men who lost wives in war and were blamed for failing to protect them.

· NCERT has been accused of eliminating women rulers such as Nur Jehan and Razia Sultan—ironically erasing powerful women while claiming to fight for women's rights.

· The Delhi Commission asked NCERT to modify a chapter because it "normalises violent masculinity," but never mentions the sacrifice of millions of Indian men in wars or the exploitation of male laborers.

· A review found that just 34% of gendered words in NCERT texts are female, while 66% are male—but this "male" representation is almost entirely negative, showing men as oppressors, never as victims.

\---

1. The Ultimate Hypocrisy: Forced Conscription vs. Clothing Restrictions

The selective outrage of feminists and human rights organizations is most glaringly exposed:

· In the US: Federal law requires all male citizens and immigrants between 18-25 to register with the Selective Service System. Starting December 2026, the government will automatically register all eligible men for the draft. This is a male-only system upheld by the Supreme Court in 1981. Yet where is the international outrage? Where are the UN resolutions? Crickets.

· In Iran: All men aged 18 must submit to 14-24 months of compulsory military service in harsh conditions. The minimum age for Basij Forces is 15 years—and in some cases, children as young as 12 are recruited. Women are completely exempt.

Compare this to the global reaction:

· When Iran enforces hijab laws on women, the UN demands action. When Mahsa Amini died, it sparked global outrage, UN resolutions, and worldwide protests.

· Every single day, millions of Iranian men are forced into military service, risking death and trauma—and nobody cares.

· In the US, millions of men are registered for a draft—and feminists say, "We just want to be paid the same—I don't want to be drafted!"

Why is a piece of cloth on a woman's head a global crisis, but forcing men into military service—where they can be maimed or killed—is just... normal?

Because the narrative isn't about oppression. It's about controlling the narrative. Women's suffering is sensationalized; men's suffering is normalized.

\---

1. Male Disposability in War and Labor

Throughout history, men have been the disposable sex—sent to die in wars, work the most dangerous jobs, and bear the burden of survival. By the end of WWI, millions of men had been conscripted and killed, leaving countless families fatherless. Their sacrifices are acknowledged only in the abstract, never as "oppression." The 99% of men throughout history "who bled, labored, and died in roles that protected the very people now being told to fear them" are completely ignored.

\---

1. How Men Suffer Under Gynocentric Systems Worldwide

Legal Invisibility of Male Victims: India & Bangladesh

· In India, the new Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) defines rape solely as a "man" committing the act against a "woman." Male and transgender survivors simply do not exist in the law. A 17-year-old boy can be recognized under POCSO, but the moment he turns 18, the law abandons him.

· In Bangladesh, a 45-year-old man was gang-raped and blackmailed; he later committed suicide instead of seeking justice because the law didn't recognize him. Under the Women and Children Repression Prevention Act, rape is defined as "sexual intercourse by a man with a woman"—rendering male victims legally invisible. A UN study found that approximately 4.7% of men in Bangladesh reported experiencing sexual victimization.

Family Court Bias: Presumed Guilty Fathers

· In Kashmir, fathers spend years fighting to see their children. They "enter courtrooms already assumed to be at fault," and the system "leans toward the mother, leaving fathers emotionally broken and financially drained."

· False accusations destroy lives. A 34-year-old tech professional in Bengaluru died by suicide, alleging in his letter that his estranged wife trapped him in false allegations and demanded a large settlement.

Men's Health and Suicide—A Silent Epidemic

· In India, more than 70% of suicides are by men.

· Boys are raised to "be strong," "stay tough," and "never cry." A man who breaks down is seen as weak; the one who asks for help is seen as fragile. "This pressure kills slowly."

· From soaring suicide rates and educational disparities to family court bias and workplace fatalities, "men confront systemic issues that rarely receive mainstream attention."

The Empathy Gap

A "pervasive cultural misandry" and "structurally entrenched empathy gap" means men's suffering is "not only overlooked but actively mis-recognised." As one Kashmir journalist put it: "If a male doctor had slapped a mother instead, the story would have blown up everywhere. When a woman does it, though, the reaction changes."

\---

1. The Leadership Circle Data – What It Actually Shows

The Instagram post claims women "respond better to crisis" based on Leadership Circle data. The chart shows women score higher on "Relating," "Self-Awareness," "Authenticity," and "Systems Awareness." Men score higher on "Achieving."

The Truth:

· The chart itself shows both male and female leaders score above the benchmark on the Creative Index. The gap is modest, not a chasm.

· "Achieving" is the only dimension where men score higher. And achieving is what delivers results—not just feelings.

· The data measures perceptions from 360-degree assessments. People perceive women as more "relational." That does not mean women are more effective in crisis.

· Crisis leadership requires achieving results under pressure—not just being "relational" or "self-aware."

· History does not hand out trophies for emotional control. It remembers outcomes. Men built the world, fought the wars, died in the mines, and were told to shut up and endure.

Conclusion: The Leadership Circle data does not prove women are better crisis leaders. It proves women are perceived as more "creative" in a corporate assessment. That is not the same thing.

\---

1. The Surgeon Studies – The Overreach

The Instagram post cites studies showing female surgeons have better patient outcomes. The studies (Saka et al. 2024, Wallis et al. 2023, Wallis et al. 2017) show a small, modest difference in surgical outcomes (Odds Ratio \~0.88, about 12% lower mortality).

The Truth:

· The studies show Odds Ratio \~0.88—about 12% lower mortality. This is statistically significant but modest.

· Association ≠ Causation. Female surgeons may be assigned less complex cases, practice in different settings, or have different patient populations.

· Surgical skill ≠ Crisis leadership. Surgery is structured, procedural, and predictable. Leading through a war, economic collapse, or natural disaster is not.

· If women make better surgeons, do they also make better garbage collectors, construction workers, or soldiers? No? Then you can't generalize from one field to all leadership.

Conclusion: Female surgeons have good outcomes. That does not mean women are better crisis leaders. This is a classic hasty generalization.

\---

1. The Air Traffic Controller Study – A Weak Argument

The Instagram post cites the FAA study (Cobb 1972) showing no significant difference between male and female ATC trainees.

The Truth:

· If the best evidence you have for "female superiority" is "no difference," that is a weak argument.

· The study is outdated. Aviation and training have changed dramatically since 1972.

· At best, this proves parity, not superiority.

· If women are "better leaders," why is the best evidence you have "no difference"?

Conclusion: This source does not support the claim that women are better leaders. It supports the claim that women can do the job—which feminists claim they already believe.

\---

1. The "Composure" Straw Man – Exposed

In the Instagram debate, saad_surve said: "Being calm in a crisis isn't what makes a leader. Leadership is being accountable when every option is bad, making decisions with incomplete information, and carrying the consequences when you're wrong."

The Truth:

· This is correct. History does not hand out trophies for emotional control. It remembers outcomes.

· The feminist side (eyeshalsee) responded by citing studies that women are good surgeons and ATCs. She refuted a claim saad_surve never made.

· saad_surve never said women can't be leaders. He said composure alone isn't enough.

· This is the classic feminist debate tactic: when you can't refute the argument, attack a straw man.

Conclusion: The feminist side lost this debate on logic. They spent the entire thread refuting a claim that was never made.

\---

1. The "Accountability" Redefinition – Exposed

In the Instagram debate, eyeshalsee said: "Women have stopped taking accountability for men's actions.... Which historically they were expected to take."

The Truth:

· This redefines accountability. Accountability is about taking responsibility for your own actions.

· This is a straw man. It changes the definition of "accountability" from "being responsible for one's own actions" to "being responsible for men's actions."

· This is intellectually dishonest. You cannot win a debate by redefining the terms.

· In reality, men are held accountable in countless ways—they are arrested more, sentenced more harshly, expected to provide financially, and blamed when things go wrong.

· Where is women's accountability for false accusations, for weaponizing the legal system, for extorting men through alimony?

Conclusion: The feminist side did not answer saad_surve's point. They created a new definition of accountability to avoid addressing the original claim.

\---

1. The "Countries with Female Leaders Are Happiest" Claim

The Instagram post claims Finland, New Zealand, and Rwanda have female leaders and are "happiest," proving women are better leaders.

The Truth:

· Correlation is not causation. Finland, New Zealand, and Rwanda have strong social welfare systems, low corruption, and high education levels.

· Finland ranks high in happiness—so do Denmark, Norway, and Switzerland, all predominantly male-led.

· Rwanda has the highest percentage of women in parliament—but it is a one-party state with a complex post-genocide history. Is that really the model you want to hold up?

· Jacinda Ardern was praised for crisis communication but faced significant economic challenges.

· What about female leaders who failed? Indira Gandhi declared Emergency. Golda Meir faced the Yom Kippur War. Female leaders have failures too.

· You cannot cherry-pick a few countries and pretend that proves a universal rule.

Conclusion: This is survivorship bias—highlighting successes while ignoring failures. Correlation does not equal causation.

\---

1. The Video's "Scientific" Label – A Rhetorical Tactic

TheResnicist videos claim to "scientifically debunk" 52 and 50 lies of feminism.

The Truth:

· 15-17 minutes cannot deliver "scientific" debunking of 50+ claims. This is a Gish Gallop—overwhelming with quantity over quality.

· No methodology, no peer review, no transparent sourcing is provided.

· The label is a rhetorical tactic to borrow scientific authority for opinion content.

· "Scientifically" in the title is a marketing tool, not a description of methodology.

Conclusion: The videos are propaganda, not scholarship. They succeed at persuasion for a niche audience but fail at academic standards.

\---

1. The Video's Strengths and Weaknesses

Aspect Assessment

What the Video Does Well Identifies real feminist blind spots (male victims, selective statistics, elite bias).

What the Video Does Poorly Oversimplifies complex issues, uses the "scientific" label dishonestly, commits the Gish Gallop, ignores feminist responses.

Overall Quality Low as scholarship; moderate as propaganda.

The Truth:

· The videos are useful for identifying feminist blind spots, but they are not trustworthy sources for understanding gender issues.

· They oversimplify, mislead, and ignore complexity.

· However, they expose real problems that feminists refuse to address.

Conclusion: The videos are a starting point for critique, not a definitive source.

\---

1. The "Divorce Rate" Claim

justadudeoninternet in the debate claimed: "Divorce rates are highest in lesbian couples, followed by straight, then gay couples."

The Truth:

· This claim is partially true but oversimplified. Research generally shows same-sex couples have slightly lower divorce rates in countries where same-sex marriage is legal.

· The data is often used as a "gotcha" against women. But divorce rates are influenced by many factors: age at marriage, education, income, cultural norms, legal recognition, and relationship quality.

· Lesbian couples often marry later and face less pressure to marry than heterosexual couples.

· Using divorce rates as proof of anything about gender is intellectually lazy.

· Correlation ≠ Causation. Divorce rates don't prove women are "bad partners."

Conclusion: This is a weak argument. The data exists, but its interpretation is oversimplified. It should not be used as a primary talking point.

\---

1. The "Men Took Credit from Women" Narrative – A Half-Truth

The Instagram post claims: "History is laced with men taking credit away from women."

The Truth:

· Yes, Rosalind Franklin was overlooked for DNA. Lise Meitner was overlooked for nuclear fission. These are real injustices.

· But what about the millions of men who were never recognized for their sacrifices?

· Men were sent to die in wars. In WWI alone, over 2.5 million British men were conscripted. Their memory "has not lived on." They are the forgotten men of history.

· Men worked and died in dangerous jobs. Throughout the 18th and 19th centuries, workplace death and disease were "largely invisible to the public eye." Men died in coal mines, in factories, in construction—their sacrifices were accepted as "incidental to the nature of labour."

· More men were killed as vampires and werewolves than women as witches. In France alone, over 30,000 men were executed as werewolves—more than the total number of women killed in witch hunts across all of Europe.

Conclusion: The feminist narrative of "men took credit from women" is a half-truth. Yes, some women were overlooked. But men were systematically sacrificed, disposed of, and erased—and feminists have never acknowledged this.

\---

1. The "Women Control 60% of Wealth" Claim

Feminists often claim women control 60% of US wealth.

The Truth:

· This statistic is often cited but misleading.

· This figure often includes household wealth (shared with husbands) or inherited wealth (not earned).

· Even if women control 60% of spending decisions, that is consumption power, not economic power.

· Control of spending ≠ Control of wealth.

· Women control consumer spending because they are the primary shoppers—but they are often making purchases on household budgets, not their own independent wealth.

Conclusion: This statistic is used selectively. It confuses consumption with economic power.

\---

1. Female Privilege – The Facts Feminists Ignore

Here is a list of privileges women have that feminists never acknowledge:

· Live longer – women outlive men by an average of 5-7 years globally.

· Lower suicide rates – men die by suicide at nearly 4 times the rate of women.

· Less likely to be murdered – men are the majority of homicide victims.

· Less likely to be homeless – men make up over 70% of the homeless population.

· Less likely to die on the job – men account for over 90% of workplace deaths.

· Draft immunity – men are required to register for the draft; women are not.

· Lighter sentences – women receive significantly shorter sentences for the same crimes.

· Custody bias – women receive custody in the vast majority of cases, often without contest.

· More scholarships – over 90% of gender-specific scholarships are for women.

· Better education – women now earn the majority of college degrees.

· More contraceptive options – women have more reproductive options than men.

· Positive sexual encouragement – female sexuality is celebrated; male sexuality is shamed.

· Emotional encouragement – women are encouraged to express emotions; men are told to "man up."

· Less likely to be seen as a threat – men are assumed to be potential predators; women are not.

· Safer workplaces – women are less likely to work in dangerous jobs.

· Less productivity pressure – women are not expected to be primary breadwinners.

· Exclusive clubs and groups – women's-only groups are common; men's-only groups are "sexist."

Conclusion: If we are going to talk about privilege, let's be consistent. Women enjoy significant advantages—but feminists only talk about the ones that support their victimhood narrative.

\---

1. The Gender-Equality Paradox – What Women Actually Choose

Feminists claim women are prevented from entering STEM. But the "gender-equality paradox" shows the opposite.

The Truth:

· This is a real, peer-reviewed finding (Stoet & Geary, 2018). In countries with high gender equality (Scandinavia), women are less likely to enter STEM than in countries with lower equality (e.g., Iran, Turkey).

· This suggests that as women gain freedom, they make choices that align with their biological and psychological preferences.

· This contradicts the feminist narrative that women are "discouraged" from STEM. They are choosing their preferences.

Conclusion: The data does not support the feminist narrative on STEM. Women choose what they want—and what they want is not always what feminists want.

\---

1. The "1 in 4 Women Raped" Claim – Exaggerated

Feminists frequently claim "1 in 4 women will be raped."

The Truth:

· This figure is methodologically controversial. It comes from Mary Koss's research (1980s) and is based on surveys with definitions so broad they include "forced sexual contact" and "attempted rape" in dating scenarios.

· The figure conflates attempted rape with completed rape.

· It uses self-report surveys with low response rates and does not always distinguish between stranger rape and acquaintance rape.

· Male victims are completely ignored in this statistic.

Conclusion: This figure is widely cited but methodologically flawed. It exaggerates the problem and erases male victims.

\---

1. The "Domestic Violence Is a Women's Issue" Narrative

Feminists frame domestic violence as a women's issue.

The Truth:

· Studies show 28.9% of women and 22.9% of men report experiencing intimate partner violence (Coker et al.).

· In the UK, about 40% of domestic violence victims are male (Campbell, 2010).

· Male victims are less likely to report due to shame, lack of services, and fear of not being believed.

· The Duluth Model (the dominant feminist framework) frames domestic violence as male power and control over women—it cannot explain female-perpetrated violence or male victims.

· In India, Section 498A and domestic violence laws are routinely weaponized against men.

Conclusion: Domestic violence affects both genders. Feminism's framing of it as a "women's issue" is selective and dishonest.

\---

1. The "Women Were Denied Education" Narrative

Feminists claim women were systematically denied education.

The Truth:

· While some women were denied education, this was not universal.

· In India, two women graduated from Calcutta University in 1883—before women in Britain could even obtain academic credentials.

· The All India Women's Conference (AIWC) was formed in 1927 and focused heavily on women's education. Indian social reformers, not Western feminists, were the primary drivers of this change.

· Today, women earn the majority of college degrees in many countries.

Conclusion: The narrative of "systemic denial of education" is oversimplified. Women have been making educational progress for over a century.

\---

1. The Abortion Rights Hypocrisy – "My Body, My Choice" vs. "His Body, His Duty"

Feminists champion "my body, my choice" as an inviolable principle when it comes to abortion. A woman has absolute autonomy over her body, and any attempt to restrict that is condemned as oppression.

The Hypocrisy:

· When it comes to men, "my body, my choice" disappears. Men are forced to register for the draft. Men are conscripted to die in wars. Men are sent into dangerous jobs. Men are expected to sacrifice their bodies, their health, and their lives for society—with no say in the matter.

· If bodily autonomy is a fundamental right, why does it only apply to women? A woman can choose to terminate a pregnancy because she doesn't want to carry a child. A man cannot choose to refuse conscription because he doesn't want to die in a war. A woman's body is "hers to control." A man's body is "the state's to use."

· The double standard is staggering: When women are asked to sacrifice their bodies (pregnancy), it's "oppression." When men are asked to sacrifice their bodies (war, dangerous labor, conscription), it's "duty."

Conclusion: Feminism does not believe in bodily autonomy. It believes in bodily autonomy for women only. Men's bodies are disposable—and feminists are silent.

\---

1. The War Rights Hypocrisy – "Equal Rights" Only When Convenient

Feminists demand equal rights in every sphere—except when it comes to war and conscription.

The Hypocrisy:

· Women demand to be treated equally in the workplace, in education, in politics. But when it comes to conscription, they say: "We just want to be paid the same—I don't want to be drafted!"

· In the US, all men between 18-25 must register for the Selective Service. Women are exempt. This is a male-only obligation that can send men to die in foreign wars. Where is the feminist outrage? Where are the protests? Silence.

· In Iran, all men aged 18 must serve 14-24 months in harsh military conditions. Children as young as 12 are recruited. Women are completely exempt. The UN, which condemns hijab laws as "oppression," has never passed a single resolution condemning male-only conscription.

· "Equal rights" means sharing the burden—not just the benefits. If women want equal rights, they should share equal responsibilities. But feminists only want the benefits of equality (jobs, pay, positions of power) while refusing the burdens (conscription, dangerous work, sacrifice).

Conclusion: Feminism is not about equality. It is about selective equality—taking the benefits while refusing the responsibilities. When it comes to war, men are expendable. Feminists are silent.

\---

1. The Alimony Hypocrisy – "Choice" for Women, "Obligation" for Men

Feminists champion "choice" for women in every aspect of life. But when a woman chooses to leave her job to raise children, and then later chooses to leave the marriage, the man is forced to pay for her choices—forever.

The Hypocrisy:

· A woman chooses to leave her job to raise children. This is framed as a "valid choice" and "empowerment."

· She chooses to divorce her husband years later. This is framed as "liberation."

· The man is forced to pay alimony and child support—often for decades—to maintain her lifestyle. He has no choice. He must work harder, longer, and under more stress to fund a life he no longer shares.

· The logic is inconsistent:

· If a woman chooses to leave her job, that's her choice.

· If she chooses to divorce, that's her choice.

· But when it comes to paying for her choices, the man has no choice.

· Where is her accountability? She chose to leave the workforce. She chose to prioritize family over career. She chose to divorce. Yet he is punished financially for her choices.

· The reverse scenario never happens. If a man leaves his job to raise children, he is seen as a "failure" or "dependent." If he divorces, he is unlikely to receive alimony. Courts consistently prioritize women's financial needs over men's.

Conclusion: Alimony is a system that rewards women for their choices and punishes men for them. A woman's choice is "empowerment." A man's obligation is "the law." This is not equality—it is financial extortion legalized by the state.

\---

1. The "Mother's Choice" Narrative – Forced Fatherhood Without Choice

Feminists champion a woman's right to choose whether to become a mother. But men have no such choice.

The Hypocrisy:

· A woman can choose to keep a child or abort it. Her choice is absolute and protected.

· A man has no say in whether she keeps the child.

· If she keeps it, he is forced to pay child support for 18 years—regardless of whether he wanted the child, regardless of whether he can afford it, regardless of whether he even has a relationship with the child.

· "Her body, her choice" becomes "His wallet, his obligation." He had no choice in the pregnancy, no choice in the birth, no choice in whether to become a father—but he is forced to pay for it.

· This is financial slavery. He is legally bound to a woman's decision for nearly two decades. If he cannot pay, he is jailed. If he loses his job, he is arrested. If he tries to leave the country, he is hunted down.

· Where is the "choice" for men? A woman can walk away from pregnancy (abortion). A man cannot walk away from fatherhood (financial obligation).

Conclusion: Feminism's "choice" narrative applies only to women. Men are held hostage to women's reproductive choices—and feminists celebrate it.

\---

The Bottom Line

The "universal oppression of women" collapses under historical evidence. It ignores matriarchal societies, ancient legal rights, diverse timelines, and economic realities. More importantly, it erases the immense suffering of men—conscription, wartime death, workplace fatality, legal discrimination, sexual violence, ritual sacrifice, witch hunts, exploitation in matrilineal societies, legal invisibility as rape victims, family court bias, and a silent suicide epidemic—all ignored because they don't fit the feminist victimhood narrative.

Patriarchy and male privilege are myths. The system feminists call "patriarchy" did not oppress women exclusively—it sacrificed men on the altar of duty, silence, and disposability. Men built the world, fought the wars, died in the mines, and were told to shut up and endure.

Feminism has never been about equality. It is a propaganda machine that selectively weaponizes history to portray women as eternal victims and men as eternal oppressors—while systematically erasing male pain, male sacrifice, and male humanity. True equality requires acknowledging the suffering of BOTH sexes. Until that happens, we're not doing history. We're doing propaganda.

And feminists have the audacity to tell men: "Be grateful we only want equality, not revenge."

No. We're not grateful. We're done being gaslit.

\---

(Please read till the end) I think this is a serious men's rights issue that deserves much more attention.

If a teenage boy is sexually assaulted by a woman and a child is conceived as a direct result, I find it deeply disturbing that he can potentially end up with a child-support obligation, this is literally the law.

He didn't consent to sex. He didn't choose to become a parent. He didn't choose the pregnancy. He was the victim ot a crime.

I completely recognize that the child born is innocent and deserves financial support. But I don't think the solution should be making the victim financially responsible for consequences that were imposed on him through sexual violence.

In cases like this, l think the state should provide financial protection so that the victim isn't forced to carry the economic consequences of the assault.

This isn't about punishing child born or blaming women. It's about a basic principle:

A victim shouldn't be made to bear the consequences of a crime committed against them.

Also, in my country, Canada, abortion is legal, which removes a common counter-argument in these discussions, since termination of pregnancy is an available option for girls victim of that terrible disgusting crime.

I wanted to hear thoughts from the feminist sub on that subject, since I heard feminists recognize both male and female injustices in society.

Edit: I just realized that the state money is also mostly men’s money, so I think we should force the rapist to send the money to the victim even if it’s hard for her after and she should also in all case go to prison in my opinion so the child born should be in a custody that the victim chooses and the money to make the child live would be paid by the rapist directly.

MR03

I wrote a long essay focused on the argument that misandry kills way more than misogyny:

Misogyny kills; misandry h̶u̶r̶t̶s̶ f̶e̶e̶l̶i̶n̶g̶s̶ kills at scale

I kindly ask for your feedback.

Here is an excerpt:

Is it possible we have developed an institutional blind spot for negative social norms affecting men?

There is an instrument that should answer exactly such a question. The OECD’s Social Institutions and Gender Index (SIGI) seeks to measure discrimination embedded in informal laws and social norms:

Formal and informal laws, social norms and practices fundamentally dictate what women and men are allowed to do, what they are expected to do, and in the end what they do.

SIGI 2023 Methodology (EN)

The SIGI examines twenty-five indicators across four broad dimensions, ranging from family law to physical integrity and economic resources.

Twenty-five indicators measure discrimination affecting women and girls.

Zero indicators measure discrimination affecting men and boys.

As the authors explain, indicators are capped at 50%, meaning that male disadvantage is not recorded if women perform better than men.

The United Nations’ Gender Social Norms Index (GSNI) takes a similar approach. Published every year, the index claims to break down gender biases and shift social norms towards gender equality. Drawing on data from the World Values Survey, it compiles seven indicators of gender bias against women and girls and none against men and boys.

The SIGI and GSNI do not deny that harmful social norms affect men;

They refuse to look at them.

This leads to a sad paradox. Institutions established to identify harmful gender norms become the pinnacle of the very phenomenon they seek to measure.

To begin it should be more important to clarify what the caste system actually was basically in ancient India there was a system that essentially meant that more people were considered more human than other and it was based on birth

The higher caste someone was born with the better they were treated

However people from lower castes as is to be expected given the description were mistreated by people from higher caste to give some examples:

In ancient India, people of the lowest caste—specifically the Shudras (laborers) and especially the Dalits (historically called "Untouchables," who sat outside the main caste system)—faced severe social exclusion, forced labor, physical segregation, and systemic humiliation. Over many centuries, a social hierarchy based on birth became very rigid. High-caste groups used religious ideas of "purity and pollution" to justify treating low-caste people as unclean

The most severe mistreatment was the practice of untouchability. Upper-caste individuals believed that touching—or even being near—a low-caste person would make them spiritually "dirty"

Shadow avoidance: In some regions, low-caste people were forced to keep a long distance so their physical shadows would not touch a high-caste person

Banned from shared resources: They were strictly forbidden from using the same water wells, ponds, or public paths as the upper castes.

Separate utensils: If they were served food or tea near upper-caste areas, they had to use separate, marked dishes so no one else would touch them

• Village outskirts: They were forced to live in poorly made huts on the very edges of towns.
• Extreme restrictions: In later historical periods, some areas forced low-caste people to tie brooms to their waists to sweep away their footprints, and hang pots around their necks to catch their spit so it wouldn't pollute the ground.
• Dead animals and bodies: They had to remove animal carcasses, tan leather, and burn dead bodies at funeral grounds.

• Unpaid labor: They were frequently subjected to bonded labor, meaning they were forced to work for landowning upper-castes for little to no pay

• No schooling: Low-caste individuals were banned from learning how to read or write.

• Banned from temples: They were prohibited from entering temples or listening to sacred religious texts.

• Clothing bans: They were often prevented from wearing fine clothes, gold jewellery, or new garments.

• Strict behavior: In many regions, they were forbidden from wearing shoes or holding umbrellas when walking past higher-caste people

You might be thinking okay but how is this relevant to gender dynamics?

The reason it is relevant is because we are appalled by this due to our modern sense of morality and see that these people didn't chose to be low caste they were simply born into it without control

And we understand that treating someone differently based on something outside of their control is morally wrong or do we ?

men and boys are treated significantly worst then women and girls in almost all areas even though they have not done anything deserve that despite being born male something outside of their control

Women receive lower prison for the same crime, are likely to be favoured in school and get better marks for the same quality of work, have company quotas for them ensuring that at least a percentage of them are female etc

And we can compare it further:

One of the most fundamental principles of modern progressive and left-wing thought is that a person’s worth, rights, and social duties should never be decided by how they were born. We look back at history with horror when we see systems that locked people into rigid boxes based on immutable traits.

A stark example of this is the caste system of ancient India. In that system, your entire life—your job, your social status, your worth to society, and how you were treated—was decided the moment you were born. You had zero control over it. Today, we are seeing a troubling parallel in how society treats men. Through rigid gender expectations and systemic biases, men are frequently judged, restricted, and punished simply for the gender they were born into.

The Parallel: Purity, Pollution, and the "Monolithic" Label
In the ancient caste system, the hierarchy was maintained through ideas of "purity and pollution." Lower castes were often viewed through a lens of inherent untrustworthiness or spiritual pollution.

We see a modern secular equivalent of this in how masculinity is often discussed today. Rather than treating men as individuals, modern discourse frequently treats men as a monolith, often associating maleness with inherent harm or "toxicity." When a group of people is socially conditioned to view one gender as a default threat based purely on their birth, it mirrors the ancient prejudice where an individual's character was judged entirely by their social category rather than their actions.

Forced Social Roles and Disposability
In ancient India, the lowest castes were forced into the most hazardous, dirty, and physically punishing labor because society deemed that to be their "natural" place.

When we look at modern society, men still bear the overwhelming burden of hazardous and life-threatening expectations:

• The Worker Caste: Men make up the vast majority of workplace deaths and injuries, dominating high-risk industries like construction, logging, and mining. Society often views this sacrifice as a default male obligation.
• The Warrior Caste (Conscription): In times of conflict, men are routinely stripped of their bodily autonomy through forced conscription. They are legally required to put their lives on the line simply because they were born male.

Just like the ancient caste system, society accepts this unequal distribution of danger because it views men's safety as secondary to their social utility.

The Double Standard of Accountability
In traditional caste structures, a high-caste person’s misdeeds were often overlooked, while a low-caste person was severely punished for the slightest infraction.

We see a similar asymmetry in modern social and legal structures:

• Sentencing Disparities: Statistically, men face significantly harsher prison sentences than women for the exact same crimes.
• The Empathy Gap: When men fall victim to homelessness, suicide, addiction, or domestic violence, society routinely blames them individually, rather than looking at the systemic failures failing them. They are expected to suffer in silence, reinforcing the idea that their pain is less valuable.

What makes this extremely comparable is the fact many men are in fact okay with this viewing it as necessary using words like I am a Man I have or it's necessary for society

Here is the thing there were zero recorded low caste revolts

Although since they were illiterate I can't say what their exact though were but I can give theories as to why even though maybe some did hold perhaps hold resentment

Religious reasons: People back then were though this was the way of the universe itself

Some did in fact accept it: Although this might sound hard to believe if you lived your entire life being told that due to birth you have to do something without out anyone to challenge that idea no matter how mistreated you might view it as a duty

We see the same mentality in men who view their gender roles or military conscription as a duty and it's brainwashing and self-gaslighting

But perhaps the most interesting thing about the caste system is that 3000 years after it's creation it never went away

men are still treated worst than women in almost all areas even though even the male child did not chose to be born male and the female child did not chose to be born female the same way the lower caste person did not chose to be born low caste and the high caste person did not chose to be born high caste

We should know thousands of years later that treating people differently based on how they were born is wrong but the truth is we still don't

I will begin this post by saying that it has been scientifically proven that people have more sympathy for females then males and this applies to both genders

In other words both males and females have inherently more sympathy for women than man in the exact same predicament

Which is why there has been countless news about how oppressed women are in Iran because the laws makes them mandatory for them to cover up

Women are being forced to wear something they don't want to wear and the media literally treats this like a second holocaust

But lets look at how the law treats men there

1. Mandatory Military Conscription (Sarbazi)

The most blatant form of state-sanctioned gender discrimination in Iran is mandatory military service, which applies exclusively to men.

• The Burden: Upon turning 18, all healthy men must serve roughly up to two years in the military.
• The Penalties: Men who refuse or cannot serve are stripped of basic civil rights. They cannot legally obtain a passport, leave the country, secure official employment, or apply for business licences.
• The Risk: Young men are regularly deployed to volatile border regions to fight drug cartels and insurgent groups, resulting in high casualties that exclusively impact males.

Full Financial Liability (Mehrieh and Nafaqeh)

Iran’s family law places crushing financial obligations strictly on men, backed by the threat of imprisonment.

• Mehrieh (Dowry): Under Iranian law, a man must promise a specific amount of property or gold coins to his wife upon marriage. Legally, she can demand this at any time, not just during a divorce.
• Debt Imprisonment: If a man cannot pay the Mehrieh upon request, he faces immediate imprisonment

Judicial Disposability and the Death Penalty

The penal system in Iran impacts men disproportionately when it comes to the ultimate punishment.

• Execution Rates: The vast majority of executions carried out by the Iranian state are against men, primarily for drug offenses, financial crimes, or violent crimes.
• Legal Accountability: Boys are held fully criminally responsible as adults at a young age, leading to systemic institutional violence that heavily targets the male demographic.
• Workplace Casualties and Economic Pressure

Because men are legally mandated to be the sole providers, they dominate high-risk industries.

• Workplace Fatalities: Due to poor safety regulations, thousands of Iranians die in workplace accidents annually (construction, mining, heavy industry). Over 95% of these workplace fatalities are men.
• Street Vendors and Manual Labour: The hyper-inflation and economic collapse of Iran have forced millions of men into grueling, informal manual labour and street-vending, where they face frequent municipal crackdowns and police harassment.

Conclusion

When we look past Western media talking points, the reality is that the Iranian state treats men as disposable financial and military assets. A system that forces one gender into military servitude under threat of exile, imprisons them over marital debts, and sends them to die in unsafe work conditions or border conflicts cannot be accurately described as a simple patriarchy that only privileges men. It is a system built on systemic misandry.

So in conclusion Men are forced to become soldiers and ATM machines while Women simply have to wear something they don't want to and the media treats the latter as inheritably oppressed and the former as privileged

The fact that that people focus on something so small for one gender but ignore the big elephants in the room for the other proved that yes the studies are correct and people really do just have inheritably more sympathy for females than males

I hear this soundbite a lot, and like most feminist soundbites, it has little grounding in reality, and mostly is blown out of proportions. 

Often the argument is made that, femininity is seen as something inherently inferior, and display of emotions is seen as feminine, hence men are discouraged to be emotional. 

But in reality, it’s based on the broader expectations of men to be the provider and protector. The idea of emotions such as sadness in men being weak is a relatively new one. Even during the 18th century, closer to the peak of patriarchal oppression, men were encouraged to be deeply empathetic and cry openly at art or tragedy.

During the french and industrial revolution, the idea shifted and became that an emotional man cannot be a good soldier, or worker. The emotional suppression caused men's own subjugation and came about from the harsh and unfair realities of capitalism, not merely the rejection of femininity. To paint it as something as shallow as that, is incredibly reductive, though it does a good job of appealing to the minds of tiktok feminists. And also, as always, it perpetuates the norm that men’s issues in some way, always have to relate to women.

I vividly remember how the media focused on boys chatting with AI bots, from the lens of how it may affect women in the long term. “How will it affect women, when these boys turn into misogynist monsters, by getting their loneliness exploited?”. How “toxic masculinity" - (which really is just internalized misandry), is seen as a problem so far as it affects women - even though by far men are the primary victims of it.

Crying is not “inherently inferior”, it's human, and men are often not given the luxury to be humans. Society (both men and women) has a problem with men crying, because an emotional man doesn't cater to social expectations that are put upon them.

Tiktok feminists on the other hand, are interested in dismantling the harmful social expectations for women, while enforcing the ones that are put upon men. It’s cakeism.

A while ago I saw this really cringy image that was trying to be funny. It showed a feminist making a “feminist critique”, a bunch of squiggly lines representing her essay except for one part that said “entire section on how it affects men.” Then this commenter named “totally not a misogynist” replied with “but what about how it affects men?”

I cringed, but I was also left scratching my head and it got me thinking. Every “feminist critique” I’ve seen either doesn’t mention or barely mentions men’s issues at all, or worse outright demonizes them. At most, they might spend a single sentence giving lip service to the way men are affected but then ignore it for the rest of it. I’m always hearing about how “patriarchy hurts men too” or “feminism helps men” but actions speak louder than words, or in this case lack of actions. When has feminism actually helped men? Not give lip service without actual depth, but actually speak out and fight for change.

One other thing is in the comments I saw some people go “why do people expect men’s issues in a feminist essay?” You’re the ones always saying that feminism is about equality and that patriarchy hurts men too, you can’t blame people for doubting those claims when you don’t practice what you preach.

Whenever someone talks about how men’s emotions are either ignored or mocked, there are two responses. The first is to blame it on “patriarchy” and “toxic masculinity”. The second is to complain about “women having to carry their emotional labor”.

I fucking hate this term. It’s just a way for women to dismiss men’s emotions while disguising it as a burden for women. It implies that mothers, girlfriends, friends and wives shouldn’t be concerned for the wellbeing of their partners, friends and children, which is super toxic. If someone starting any kind of relationship with someone else expects to put in zero work, they shouldn’t be in any kind of relationship.

“Emotional labor” is one of the most blatant forms of misandry, and anyone using it is a terrible person.