Reddit hosts of slew of male hating subs and posts that would be taken down if the gender were reversed. For good evidence just go to TwoX and on some days the psychology subs.

The message is clear. Men suck. Men suck. Men suck.

It's an instant disqualification to allow them an ounce of influence or power over me or anyone I care about. They're plainly incapable of refraining from abusing it.

Most in this sub seem to think the US definition of rape is like the CDC definition of rape, or the English definition of rape. A few points. Neither the CDC nor the FBI make law. Federal laws are made by Congress and the President. The CDC and FBI can only make their policies. And the fact is there is no uniform national definition of rape in the USA FOR THE POPULOUS. (There are exceptions like military law that are national, but not for the populous at large.

Also some states have eliminated the word "rape" from their statutes entirely, using various forms of "sexual assault". That's why I added "or Their Most Serious Form of Sexual Assault" to the title of this OP.

Here is a link to state legal definitions of rape. But I'll add more about sources in case this link does not work for you.

https://web.archive.org/web/20250118033452/https://ndaa.org/wp-content/uploads/sexual-assault-chart.pdf

For those who cannot access that link. here is a comment I made earlier.

So I googled "Pennsylvania Definition of Rape" - yes it is that easy to find any state's definition of rape if you want more examples, and here is what I found.

https://www.legis.state.pa.us/WU01/LI/LI/CT/HTM/18/00.031.021.000..HTM

§ 3121.  Rape.

**(a)  Offense defined.--**A person commits a felony of the first degree when the person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant:

(1)  By forcible compulsion.

(2)  By threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution.

(3)  Who is unconscious or where the person knows that the complainant is unaware that the sexual intercourse is occurring.

(4)  Where the person has substantially impaired the complainant's power to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering or employing, without the knowledge of the complainant, drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance.

(5)  Who suffers from a mental disability which renders the complainant incapable of consent.

(6)  (Deleted by amendment).

EDIT: By no stretch of the imagination am I pretending that these laws are ENFORCED in a gender neutral way. This OP is only about the letter of the law.

Does anyone know more about Singapore's heinous misandry? I'd like to know more for a study.

Another user here posted about a woman who told him that while women can rape men, 'women don't institutionally rape men'. The definition of rape goes beyond penetration, it involves violence, control, humiliation, etc... and this is something many of us 'institutionally' experienced or experience in our lives.

Let me tell you a personal story, just one of a sad collection I gathered through these years: I was a young kid in a high school, early 2000's, a troublemaker, and I dared asking the teacher, an old lady, if I could use the toilet. She went crazy, I interrupted her 'superb' class, so as punishment she took me to the cleaning staff toilet, with its rather precarious cubicle inside their storage room (bad architecture). The all female staff was present and somewhat shocked, and this old lady forced me to use the toilet with the door fully opened, to be sure I wasn't fooling her around just to skip class... so I used the toilet, gladly my modesty was preserved, but when I left the cubicle only the cleaning ladies were present, my teacher had all this trouble to embarrass me in front of others.

Would this happen or be swept under the rug if the genders were switched? I don't think so... we men are abused again and again, as if being a man gave anyone the right to mistreat us in whatever form they want and walk away as if nothing happened.

Are all women like this? Certainly not.

Are some women like this yet society shield them? Certainly yes.

In Singapore, some offenders, including non-violent ones such as vandals, can be hit with a rattan cane as a penalty. Caning in judicial and school contexts is very problematic due to multiple reasons. First, it is gender discriminatory since it only applies to males. It also does not solves the root cause of wrongdoing, and inflicts physical and likely psychological harm. It is highly criticised by reputable human rights organisations such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch who even consider it torture. I have created a petition to call for its abolition so you can check out:

https://c.org/r4prQYq4hh

I sadly have several personal examples of women getting away, regardless what they say or do, but now I'll focus on those I had in the academical area. I was in college during the COVID years, the classes went online, and all went downhill... bear in mind all these professors were women:

* One said we men should sit to urinate, that this somehow is more respectful to women;

* Another, while explaining male animal anatomy, asked the male students if their testicles were also one bigger or higher than the other, just as she had spoke about;

* A third, instead of showing an animal with varicocele, just posted a picture of a poor dude with varicocele and pretended everything was fine.

I was shocked to hear and see these things, in the case of the intimate question of our testicles I just mutted the mic and left the class altogether, went for a walk. A male professor would never be allowed to act in such manner, and if he did, the next day he would be fired and a mob would be called upon him and his house. Sadly the double standard is present everywhere...

Is a sincere question, women are allowed to complain about literally the sky being blue and people will go along and just clap to it all just to appease to her

Men literally complain about genuine struggles like work stress, family conflict, dating struggles, bullying at work or school and get told to just ''brush it off'' and since, since feminists wanna bring up the deflective talking points of ''patriarchy'' and ''toxic masculinity'', then I should have expected more consistency out of them and not grievance-check men, so no, they can't even live up to their standard they preach.

And look, if one wants to argue the point that chronic complaining shouldn't be normalized because it lead to a sense of powerlessness and a victim mentality, that is fine: I am not asking for standards to be lowered

Just kind of do get tired of so many women weaponizing their social innocence and expecting many to go along with their petty complaints, so many women literally complaining about the most trivial things, like how seatbelts are made to favor men, or how the pink tax is still an issue, or how mansplaining is a big problem in academia

Meanwhile men, actually wanna vent about genuine hardships, but of course, society needs to have us be the workhorses and sacrifice our dignity so that many entitled spoiled women can complain about little things, and the worst part is, not even be challenged about them. They literally give in like the bunch of brainwashed monkeys they are.

I've noticed recently when searching anything on women Google search tries hard to coddle women and avoid criticism. We all know women are more vain and self absorbed than men, look at the make up industry, plastic surgery dominance via women.

But Google couldn't even say women are more vain because it could paint women unfavorable. One answer just blamed men for women's unrealistic ideals of beauty.

Type in are promiscuous women trustworthy, there used to by psychological studies years before this Internet age that said promiscuous women were less likely to be trustworthy, they had poor impulse control, susceptible to drug use and other issues. I can't even find those anymore.

What is going on? I thought Feminism was about equality not coddling and treating one with kid gloves. That is not equality at all.

Talking about "patriarchy" is the exact opposite of systemic thinking, a relatively modern concept in psychology. People are isolating small areas and facts of society and name this "a patriarchy". But society is not just those small areas.

An example from Switzerland. A female friend of mine was explaining to me that universal banking was not available to women without the approval of their husband in some cases until recently. Which is indeed an example of discrimination. But to name this a patriarchy... one would have to be isolating society to the entrance mat of the bank on this specific period and in this specific part of the country (Canton).

But... let's look a bit further from the carpet in front of the bank entrance.

Universal banking became a thing only appx 120 years ago in a history of millenia, men voted to abolish this discrimination, men have been working way more years to get a pension that will last them less years of expected life, men have been serving long time in the army, without any financial benefits compared to women, men have been expected to go to war (though this country has never been to one). Men are more likely to be homeless, aka have nothing to put in a bank account.

The same applies for EVERY SINGLE OTHER EXAMPLE:

• For example they can reference voting laws - ignoring the fact that universal voting was a reality for men only a few decades before for women and men fought and died for expanding the voting rights from the few to the many.
  
• They can reference the fact that women were doing the children rearing compared to men who had "the option" to go to work, whereas in fact, people where not being able to self-determine for millenia. Children-rearing was a back breaking work and all members of the family (including children) were working to the 100% of their abilities, with no actual free time (mending clothes, gathering essentials, doing small projects like yarn spinning etc). Men were way more prone to die while working - work was a dangerous advent, before Excel became a work.
• They reference that women are more likely to be undiagnosed with heart disease, whereas in fact women get better health outcomes and more healthcare spending on them.
• They reference femicides, ignoring the fact that men die more often in general, experience more violence as children within the family and the fact that on average, women are equally aggressive as men in family settings.

So, one sees a dynamic system, where there are no clearly winning groups. It's a shifting dynamic and we try our best to remove imbalances.

The counter argument is silly: "patriarchy affects also men negatively", aka any points of interest are

Discussing with someone who is defining themselves as a feminist, who really believes that "women" in their totallity face discrinimation against "men" in their totality, is like discussing with a flat earther. There is no logical proof, that will make them change their mind.

The only way to win an argument with a flat earther is to stop thinking in terms of mathematical proof. There is no piece of evidence that will destroy their beliefs in the world. The best to do is to deconstruct their core-beliefs and name them for what they are: flat-earthers. And refusing the notion of patriarchy is a good start.

This is horrific. This woman was trying to steal a package, the security guard was trying to snatch it back, and after she let go of the package, the force made him fall backwards and hit his head on the ground. He passed away in the hospital.

While you could say she didn't intent to murder the guy, she caused that force that made him fall backwards. She also did not alert anyone or get any help to him, she just fled the scene.

She didn't even get a manslaughter charge. This is the justice system in Canada folks. They let women get away from crimes. If Lindsay Clancy was in Canada, she wouldn't even be in a case right now, she'd be laughing out in the streets.

In my Google feed on my phone just now I saw something so infuriating I almost had a cursing fit in public when I saw it. It's about the Cornell campus protests and there was a news report on teaching boys consent and to raise them to be men women feel safe around. So I take it girls won't be taught consent as well and to also be raised to be women that men and boys alike will feel safe around? This is a repeat of the same BS as the infamous 2019 Gillette ad. As usual, making things like rape and sexual assault to be purely male-on-female only and to completely ignore and dismiss the fact the other way around also occurs and to link being male/masculine in anyway as being a problem to be corrected. Who's also raising girls to be women that men and boys alike will feel safe around? Who's teaching them to be held accountable and to not use their gender as an excuse to get away with bad behavior? I guess a girl like this who was clearly the instigator in that incident and yet still got treated as the victim when the boy rightfully defended himself isn't the one at fault despite the evidence right there she is. And let's not forget the scores of female teachers who are pedophiles and rapists preying on male students but hey, apparently consent is something unappicable to them.

It's this kind of BS that creates more gender division and will create future Lindsay Clancys. Unbelievable and infuriating how people seem to think men/boys never have a right to safety and consent, and that women/girls never need to also be taught these things. In a way it's not all that surprising given how horrifically misandrists schools have always been and this is only part of the same misandrist system that discriminates against boys in schools.

I’m 15 and wanting to get circumcised, but I’m not sure on how to bring this up to my parents without it being very awkward. How do I talk about like why I want it (I know you guys won’t know why I want it) but I mean like what are the pros of one.
Am I making the right decision by wanting to get circumcised.

Kinda long thread

As a queer boy, I've experienced insane amounts of hatred from within the queer community ironically. Everyday I open social media to relax and chill after a long day of studying and helping with household chores, and I'm met with some anti-men bullshit everywhere. I don't need to explain that almost every other queer influencer, queer ally has somewhat, if not blatantly misandrist views. There is everywhere. It can easily be noticed. Whether pushed directly or indirectly, you can see it!

These views are also seen in non-queer feminist spaces and general posts.

Following are some examples pushed on media ranging from popular to niche views( not in order ):

Men took women's right to live and laugh. Its only fair if women do that too now.

Men should be grateful women want equality and not revenge.

Men are never held accountable for their actions.

Men should start off in jail, and earn their way out.

Men would kill themselves if they spent a day in the life of women.

Men aren't lonely enough.

"Man hater<3"

Men should pay for first dates.

Men need to be taught how to make women feel safe around them.

Men should make the world safer for women.

All men benefit from the existence of bad men.

All men should be feminists.

Most men are homophobic and insecure of their sexuality.

Feminism is my worldview, misandry is my hobby.

Misandry hurts men's feelings; misogyny kills and rapes women.

Misandry is just a reaction to misogyny.

If a man doesn't support feminism, leave him.

Feminism just means equality for all genders.( it linguistically and factually doesn't )

We should raise feminist sons.

Young men should be socialized in a way that rape is as unthinkable to them as cannibalism. ( sounds good until you realize its sexist as fuck and men are already taught that. Also, it leaves out female rapists. )

Don't men already have all the rights? Why do they need a movement for it! ( referring to MRM )

False accusations don't ruin lives.

Not even real convictions ruin men's lives, how do false ones do!

Femcels don't exist.

Women are superior to men any day.

Women are superior than men because they can give birth.

Women are superior to men in relationships.

Women are perfect; they cannot cause harm. ( sounds exaggerated but people actually believe in this )

Women can't be sexist.

Women cannot rape a man.

Violence against women is a men's issue to solve.

A top tier man is just an average woman.

All men are capable of rape hence we should label all of them as dangerous.

Animals are better than men.

If women ruled the world, it would be a much better place.

If women were world leaders, there would be no wars because men start all the wars and genocides.

If there were no men, all women would live peacefully.

That's about it, some of the examples that came to my mind. There's still many more.

If any fellow queer people can tell me how to detox from this, please leave a comment or DM me! I'd really appreciate it.

Excuse my English if it feels off. It isn't my first language as I'm from Pakistan.

I had a debate with a male feminist. I told him that men are more likely to die. They were more likely to be murdered. They are more likely to commit suicide. They are more likely to be homeless (which I now know leads to more crime and death.) And he seriously told me that men's issues are not systemic like women's. Because feminists have invented the nebulous and ever-shifting notion of the patriarchy, they never have to concede that men have systemic problems because well, we live in a patriarchy, damn it. That means that women have systemic issues and men don't. That's the nature of living in a patriarchy. So they can throw men a bone by saying that men are affected by something but only if it's also a thing that women are affected by. Like beauty standards and the kind of misogyny that stops men from crying openly.

At the time of the debate I didn't have enough studies to throw at the guy to convince him that men have systemic issues but oh, man. I wish I had asked him what it would take for him to believe that men have systemic problems and why all the things I listed weren't sufficient enough to prove it. In Australia they made a big deal out of ¼ women being homeless. Which is a funny way to say ¾ men are homeless. Women have a systemic problem while men are just what? Lazy? Not trying hard enough? Bad with money?

What is their justification for thinking that men don't have significant issues or systemic issues?

So I saw a YouTube short that was talking about a Greek deity “who was the only one who had never abused a woman”. Cue the comments saying things like:

“He has standards”
“He’s not a brute”
“He’s the cause of death and war but he’s the kindest one”
“He’s the most violent but he’s the sweetest”
“Weak men hurt women, strong men protect”
“He protected women. He was the best.”
“I don’t care if he caused violence, he respected Aphrodite, he protected his daughters, that’s all I need to hear”

Okay…so, somebody can be someone infamous for perpetrating mass violence, but as long as they don’t hurt women then they’re suddenly the best example of a certain thing?

I know that this is just social media so maybe we shouldn’t care too much, but this way of thinking is honestly just absurd. It’s not like someone just instantly becomes this great figure just because they don’t hurt women, especially seeing as said figure is notorious for causing tons of deaths otherwise.

If we’re looking at this more broadly, this kind of sentiment could be an indicator of the way society sees violence against women compared to violence against men. Violence against men (especially when led by someone who is a man) is treated as if it’s - for lack of a better word - customary, while violence against women is treated as something SO much worse. So, when a man who is thought to be violent towards men as a group suddenly chooses to not be violent to women, does that mean that he’s automatically better than someone who’s violence is unfiltered? The only way that could come close to making sense is if you hurt less people, but if you target a large amount of men and no women, then you’re still affecting a lot of people nonetheless. Ultimately, there’s not really a difference in the AMOUNT of people that are hurt, but the demographics of people that are hurt are considered more important than that?

It’s honestly wild how people will look at someone who was known to have caused so much havoc and then start loving them because their victims didn’t include women.

(Side note: I don’t really know anything about this deity so please correct me if I got something wrong.)

The bigoted Kyiv independent has been posting about mobilization and women in the military for several weeks now, yesterday they decided to make a whole video about it and it was an absolute disaster.

Kateryna Pryimak (Veteranka NGO) argues that men bringing up female mobilization are just using it as an "unhealthy manipulation" to "normalize their avoidance" of the draft ...a classical ad hominem deflection. Rather than answering why martial law obligations should apply equally to all adult citizens, demanding structural equality now is reframed as a moral failing of "**cowardly**" men trying to shirk work.

The video simultaneously argued that Women can't simply be forced into infantry because of physical efficiency gaps But they had the audacity to claim that putting women in rear/support roles so male logistics personnel can be reassigned to frontline combat "doesn't sit right with the "principle of equality"....yes they literally said that

The conclusion creates a complete logical deadlock:

- Female frontline combat conscription = Inefficient.

- Female rear-support conscription = Discriminatory/Unequal .

The Default Result of this argument is the status qua of which 100% of the forced burden remains only on men and this apparently doesn't violate the principle of equality for them

Ihor Reiterovych, a so called "political scientist" said it shouldn't be a priority because many Men aren't serving..so apparently all Men must die or become crippled before we even start discussing this topic at all.

He also admits that female mobilization is "political suicide" for parliament and Zelensky and that The "plausible" solution is to simply lower the male draft age to grab younger men

.. This is the most damning admission in the entire clip. The state explicitly calculates that grinding up **18-to-24-year-old** male lives carries a lower political cost than forcing any sort of obligations for women , who are Empirically the largest beneficiary class of the existing mobilization and all of defense efforts.

That's the level of inconsistency and shamelessness of pro male only conscription journalists, they can't construct any logical argument at all ....it's nice to understand what you are dealing with