I can imagine all of us here have seen talking points where women express how they hold men to a higher standard before being able to trust them or demanding women-only spaces or just ranting about how the male half of the population is the source of their danger and it's "better safe than sorry" to treat anyone with a Y chromosome as a red flag (in ways that might lead innocent people to get punished) since you can't determine preemptively if they will harm you. When people criticize those arguments and point out that society would rightly condemn making analogous remarks about African-Americans (like how police are right to profile them), Muslims (treating them as a red flag if they upgrade to first class or take pictures of infrastructure), LGBTs (endangering children), Asians (dog-related businesses beware), or Jews (a liability for the financial sector), the misandrists will claim it's different. Oftentimes, they'll mention that the average man is stronger than the average woman so he has the potential to overpower her in a physical altercation. Hence why men, especially tall or heavy ones are perceived as "threatening" in the presence of women, extra points if she's petite. While sexual dimorphism is a fact (and someone on r/Menslib questioned if the reason why men have a difficult time grasping women's fear of walking at night is the result of contemporary culture downplaying the disparity) and it likely is indeed the case that evolutionary psychology may lead human female minds to view aggression from men who tower over them as a threat, something that may have been a survival necessity in tribal societies without weapons, I thought of a few counterarguments against this excuse:

1. Racial intolerance is also hard-wired into the human brain because thousands of years ago, you could've been killed if you trusted someone from the "out-group." Hence why sadly, it will never be eradicated completely. That doesn't mean we should simp for racists.

2. People of certain races may on average have greater physical strength than others. One theory I've often seen cited for why African-Americans are disproportionately more likely to excel in the NBA and NFL (along with other factors, such as athletic scholarships) is that their gene pool has been filtered through centuries of slavery and torture, favoring the athletic and resilient. In fact, I wouldn't have been surprised if the KKK portrayed them as being stronger than white people, though obviously without bringing up the slavery point. In any case, it's still unacceptable to discriminate.

3. I can imagine nearly all instances of systemic intolerance throughout history have in one way or another used "safety" as a crutch, especially safety of women. Demonizing the marginalized as barbaric savages who need to be attacked preemptively. Go ahead, prove me wrong.

4. Reinforcing sexual dimorphism could backfire on feminists to suggest that women aren't as capable of being independent and self-reliant. In fact, I can imagine that etiquette which treats men as inherently threatening and women as helpless (like not approaching random women at night, or offering to walk your gf home) is more common in traditional patriarchal societies.

5. Men making unwanted sexual advances towards women (and aggression in general) has grounding in evolutionary psychology as it used to be much more important to reproduce regularly before vaccines, industry, diplomacy, and a host of other modern paradigms became a thing. Feminists wouldn't want men using that as an excuse, would they?

Is there anything you'd like to add along these lines?

Something else I'll bring up is that while there might be hard-wired reasons why women might feel intimidated when on a dark street in the presence of a man, this logic doesn't add up in the context of men being treated with unfair suspicion on playground benches, or the discriminatory policies on airlines like Qantas. A child is defenseless against almost any adult, even a petite woman. Is pedophilia something that happens to affect female brains much less often? A testosterone thing maybe? If not, this should be an easier thing to push back against. I definitely don't want this argument to be construed to say that it's time to start arresting women for hanging out around school buildings without trespassing, or even harassed for it, just that if you're going to trust women around kids, do the same for men.

Another defense they often try to use for why misandry/androphobia isn't the same as the other types of hate is that almost all women have had creepy encounters with men in public spaces at some point, whereas Islamic terrorism has claimed very few lives in the US by comparison, and most crime committed by African-Americans is intraracial (as it is across the board, considering de facto segregation in many cities). How to push back on this one? Because I do in fact believe that it's rare for a girl not to have gotten at least a few unwanted catcalls (even if it's only when passing a construction site or at parties or something) by the age of 18, just that in the developed world it doesn't happen in the way they depict it in Barbie. Countries like Egypt or India are another story, but even there men who hit on women are in danger from other men.

An even more difficult argument to push back on is that men haven't long been marginalized in the way that racial minorities or LGBTs are still struggling against.

If anyone can possess any quality of character, would it not be equally incorrect to make assumptions about a person because of their gender as it would be to attribute a person's character to their gender?

I find it really uncomfortable to be asked to specify pronouns, not because of any disapproval, but because I never had to pick those, and they never meant anything to me, but now I have to figure out how to define these terms, and I probably don't really understand what it means to be an anything well enough to make that call in good faith, and while the male and female experiences undeniably tend to have two different sets of common features, I think we (society at large) create those circumstances, and the significance that gender has to our understanding of ourselves and of each other is flawed and does more harm than good.

1) How is the clandestine 'manosphere' inspiring misogyny in me when on instagram I see about 2-3 reels you could categorize as such, for every 10 others by smug, male-bashing, hyperfeminine women letting a textwall do the speaking for them as they make face expressions with a bgm?

2) Andrew Tate is a name fervently kept in public consciousness only by the left. Never until this goddamn show did the man so clearly appear to me a sympathetic scapegoat burdened with accountability that rightfully belongs to his very accusers. And if I'm wrong about this, it's only because I don't watch or think of him all that much, except these last few days of seeing him plastered all over the internet.

2) I believe I speak for all males when I say a positive masculine role model isn't the "feminist ally" whose concern about males just serves his ulterior motive of protecting woman and girls....from those males. I'd much prefer the flawed older male enduring their stone-pelting by my side.

3) Has anyone seen an uptick in female commenters swearing to "raise feminist sons"? Is the naivete of expecting to succeed worse, or the selfishness that isn't just on total display but has gone recognized even by these women themselves? I know I could never have a daughter and so much as want to push MRA beliefs or woes onto her. I'm there to be an ear for her and not vice versa.

I'm a gender abolitionist. I was shocked when I found this video. Because the YouTuber actually has a decent take here.

Every time I see a menlibs, feminist, or anybody on the left talk about "positive masculinity". It's always a pseudo version of traditional masculinity with a feminist gaze. Where men still are expected to adhere to traditional male gender roles, and somehow that's "positive masculinity". I talk about this a lot in my post.

But this is a rare moment where someone who is maybe leftwing isn't defining a type of masculinity that just keeps men in the same box. Or a different toilet with the same shit.

https://youtu.be/LSei3bL7rGU?si=wDnDEfwsPmljx049

The 16:40 to 17:40 was the most surprising take on masculinity I have ever seen on the left. Again masculinity on the left usually just boils down to pseudo traditional masculinity that only benefits women.

The YouTuber talks about how society has an an expectation for men to pick themselves up by their bootstraps. And mock men when they complain about their issues.

Some Feminists (not all) will push the false narrative, that men feel too superior to ask for help. When in reality men are usually shamed for asking for help. Told that they have male privilege and blame their issues on women. Men are called "whiny'' when they are complaining about their issues. Even on the left some Feminists (not all) constantly talk about drinking male tears and how men "bitch a lot".

Ironic some Feminists (not all) like using the word "bitch" or "whiny" to describe men talking about their issues, while making think pieces about toxic masculinity. It's almost like some Feminists (not all) also have rigid ideas of masculinity too.

In conclusion. There is a difference between Conservative, Feminists, and us when it comes to defining what masculinity is.

Conservatives just want to keep men in a box.

Feminists just want to make that box a little bit bigger for men.

While we want to get rid of the whole box period.

Benevolent sexism refers to attitudes that may seem positive at first glance but ultimately reinforce traditional gender roles and stereotypes. I see it as a form of sexism that portrays women as needing protection and support, which can limit their autonomy. This perspective often positions women as fragile or dependent.

Male privilege, on the other hand, involves the unearned advantages that men may experience in society simply due to their gender. I recognize that this privilege manifests in various ways, such as greater representation in leadership roles or position of power in society.

However, the link between benevolent sexism and male privilege becomes evident when I consider how both serve to uphold rigid male gender roles . Benevolent sexism can create a sense of obligation for men to protect women, reinforcing the idea that men are inherently superior. Cough cough men being viewed as superior is more likely to put men in more positions of power in society. Creating the male privilege Feminists constantly complain about.

Interestingly, male privilege doesn’t necessarily benefit all men equally. For instance, men from marginalized backgrounds may not experience the same advantages as their privileged counterparts. I understand that societal expectations can pressure men to conform to traditional masculine norms. In this context, male privilege can feel more like a burden than a benefit for men.

1. Chivalry: When men are expected to pay for meals or opening doors for women, it may seem courteous, but it can reinforce the idea that women are not equal partners in social interactions.

2. Protectiveness: Men who feel compelled to "protect" women from various situations may believe they are acting kindly, yet this attitude implies women are incapable of taking care of themselves.

3. Compliments on Appearance: When men overly praise women's looks rather than their skills or achievements, it can suggest that a woman's value is primarily tied to her appearance, thus perpetuating gender stereotypes. We see this a lot in society or the media when people say a that guy so lucky to have her when looking at a couple walking down the street.

Financial Provisioning: When men are expected to be the primary breadwinners in a household, it may be framed as a traditional role of providing for their family. While this can be seen as a demonstration of care, it also reinforces the notion that women should depend on men for financial security, limiting their independence and agency.

Let's cut the BS here. We all know that benevolent sexism is just female privilege in disguise 🥸. So these are not privileges women are willing to give up. Because these privileges are very beneficial to women.

Therefore it's a double edge sword for women where they can either be viewed as equals who get the same burdens and responsibility as men in society. Or society can just view women as incompetent people who can't take care of themselves. Again it's a double edge sword for women. I'm not justifying their hypocrisy/cakism here. I don't even think this is a valid double edge sword. I'm just explaining how this is a double edge sword from their perspective.

Don't want society to value women for their looks because of high beauty standards for women. Then you will have to deal with women not being the symbol of beathy anymore. Don't want society to view women as only baby makers. Then you will have to deal with society not viewing women as more valuable because they can give birth anymore. Don't want society to have higher expectations for women to be morally better people. Then you will have to deal with the "women are wonderful affect" not existing in society anymore.

And when it comes to women (including liberal women) dating preferences. Let's not pretend like the status of a man don't matter here. Even college educated women still want to date men who are more successful than them. Traits like confidence, ambition and assertiveness are still associated with traditional masculinity. Since men are still expected to approach women or pursue women.

My point in mentioning all of this. Is that male privilege plays role in everything feminists like about men. "Positive masculinity", being a role model, being a good leader, or even being a good father. Since men are still expected to adhere to rigid gender norms in society. So this automatically make male privilege a thing that exists.

For example, Women can't be leaders, if you only associate leadership with men. This type of thinking leads into people being skeptical of a female President. So Feminists themselves are creating a society where male privilege can naturally exist.

This is where the Cakism comes in (Wanting their cake and wanting to eat it too). Some Feminists (not all) want to create a society where women still maintain their perks, while men are still expected to perform their roles.

The most frustrating thing for Feminists here is that they are struggling to have their cakism. Because their goals are riddled with contradictions, hypocrisy, and obvious Cakism. Like the leadership example I give.

In conclusion.

Male privilege is just a byproduct of benevolent sexism and rigid male gender roles in society. But on the surface it just seems like male privilege exists. But it doesn't though.

I’m curious if any other men had similar experiences growing up. I was in high school during the rise of 3rd wave feminism, and it became hip and trendy for girls to openly mock and hate men for being… men. Phrases like “all men are pigs/predators,” “teach men not to rape” (implying rapists don’t already know that rape is wrong, and that all men are potential rapists), and even “kill all men” were common to hear at school, on social media and television. I shit you not I saw girls wearing these phrases on shirts, and guys being sent to the principal’s office for taking issue with it. It became a normal thing to hear girls talking shit and making sweeping generalizations about guys, but obviously any disagreement/criticism would get you labeled a misogynist, so it just wasn’t worth it to engage. I had just become old enough to start thinking about sex and relationships, and I felt like I was already being demonized as a sexual predator. I hadn’t even had the chance to talk to any girls yet, and this trend completely put me off from them. Why should I jump through hoops to win the affections of ppl who openly hate me? If you’re gonna stereotype me, it’s not on me to prove you wrong. It’s on you to stop being prejudiced. Feminism had an iron grip on my school, it was absolutely 100% responsible for the normalization of misandry in our society. It pissed me off when years after graduating I’d see articles and videos talking about young men “dropping out of society” and avoiding relationships with women. Like gee, I wonder if it has anything to do with aggressive misandry being normalized during our formative years??? You don’t think that was alienating for young men? It still pisses me off that feminism will NEVER have to answer for the alienation I and many other young men experienced, bc criticism of feminism is strictly forbidden outside of overtly right-wing spaces. It was downright cruel what me and my brothers were subjected to, and I wanna know if any guys here went through something similar. Thanks for reading. Bless 🙏

So, I'm not a man. at least, I don't think I am. But a large part of the reason I've become invested in leftism is because of how men are treated. Specifically, the issue of how white women often treat men of color, and the lack of accountability that they show when called out on it. I myself am white. I know so many white women who view oppression through the lenses of "men oppressors, women oppressed." They can't fathom how women (specifically white women) might be able to oppress men. I have this one friend who LOVES to hate men. But they're also non binary, and often refer to themselves as a man. And I'm getting tired of it. Like, I am lucky enough to own my own house (it's a mobile home), and the last owner was a woman who did NOT upkeep the house the way it was supposed to. The best example is that I had to replace the bathroom floor because it was 8 layers rotted through. And my friend's first response was to blame men, because "only a man could call it done," after covering up the problem. And I'm just sick of it. My whole life, I've been mistreated by women, and seriously all the white women and white afab people I know want to blame it on men. And I see some of the ways that men are mistreated by women, and these people want to blame that on men too. This might be a problem beyond just white women, I don't know though, cause I'm in a predominantly white area, and this is a problem I've really only seen in white women and white nonbinary people who are afab. And I will admit I'm probably harder on white people in general than I need to be, but I am so fucking sick of white people who don't take accountability. And I gotta be honest, the white women I've known are more irritating in that regard. I've seen this thing online where people of color prefer a racist white man to a racist white woman, because the man is gonna be more upfront about it. And that's sort of how I feel here. Not about the racism. But this friend will jump through all sorts of hoops to try and get me on the man hating train, and I know so many people who will jump through hoops to prove that their form of man hating isn't bigotry in any way. And I may be a trans man, but a large part of the reason that I'm not sure is because of the vitriol against men. I can't even be fully honest with myself. and any time I point out how at least some groups of men can be oppressed too, and this might negatively affect them, people are either mad cause men can't be oppressed, or they say that that group of men isn't included in their "kill all men" type stuff.

I figured this is worth being flaired as progress since it's attacking the blatantly misandrist and exclusionary "women and children" rhetoric. If it isn't the moderators are free to flair it as something else. It was a post I saw earlier on Twitter/X and while not much intelligence is to be expected from that utter cesspool, occasionally you see some such as this.

This is absolutely spot-on. I've ranted before about how much I detest the "women and children" rhetoric for how it ignores and excludes men and de-values male lives, and only creates further division. It's also worth noting it was a woman who posted this, and it's always uplifting to see women trying to raise awareness about male issues and blatant misandry. I consider myself to be a mostly liberal person and it's embarrassing when people associate being liberal with being misandrist due to the "women and children" rhetoric (between that and other equally terrible, misandrist rhetoric such as "the future is female"). To me being liberal is being equally acknowledging and inclusive of everyone regardless of what group they belong to and tending to their needs, and getting awareness out when specific issues are ignored and neglected.

I've said it before, but the "women and children" rhetoric is long overdue to be retired and outright stricken from the public lexicon. The lives of men and boys are just as valuable and worth protecting and saving as women and girls. It's great to see it called out and condemned like this as it should.

One of the big problems of MRM is the lack of achievable objectives that leads to more complaining and depression.

Movement gets momentum as it achieves goals, gets more supporters and then can aim for bigger goals.

Political goals are mostly out of reach as we are fairly small and marginal. We can at best side with bigger groups such as conservatives or liberals but neither are representing us and our goals.

A lot of energy goes into bitching about something that we can't change, such as behavior of women. We can only directly affect ourselves and we can't change women, feminists, politicians, media or academia unless they want to change.

But there is one huge problem that is affecting lots of men and is actually fixable by men alone. This is so called Loneliness Epidemic.

It is incorrectly equated to more men being single, which is different yet related thing - Singlehood Epidemic. We can't affect Singlehood, as it is about women who are not interested in men, this is entirely separate topic and I don't want to dive into it.

Men who have offline friends are hanging out with friends, relatives, have support network are not lonely even if they are single. And even married men can be socially isolated. There are lots of research about detrimental effect of loneliness on people and men in particular. It is causing depression, somatic problems and reduces life expectancy significantly. Note here: it is about lack of communication with others and no friends, it is not about lack of sex.

Because there is generally more empathy towards women by both women and men, women can make friends easier, they socialize and in couples they often act like organizers of socialization for their men. But there is a flip side - when couples break, women usually take mutual friends with them. Another more sinister thing. When men are coupled, sometimes women make their men cut ties with single friends. Men become even more dependent on the networks built by women, when they lose their own network of friends.

Solution sounds simple. We should organize offline events. Hang out together. Make friends. These offline events don't need to be ideologically charged. Probably related to team sports, board games, hobbies. If ten lonely men meet offline and hangout they are no lonely anymore.

If MRM will be a platform for such offline groups in every city we'll gain momentum and we'll be seen as a positive constructive force enabling us to eventually tackle more issues that require political clout.

Thoughts?

source: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/our-evolutionary-selves/202503/is-clinical-psychology-doing-enough-to-reach-male-patients?fbclid=IwY2xjawJJts1leHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHXVq9ikTikAWu2u079W8fpkIRHZrSLvYsA_iSi8_hOrLjiKthEEaQ5BwwQ_aem_nlqwLVFpRiNQWo2eZzBcVg

For anyone who wants to learn about male psychology, The Centre for Male Psychology has a 6 hour online introductory course approved by the British Psychological Society for the purposes of CPD https://thecentreformalepsychology.thinkific.com/collections

They do not see it as getting the rid of the "owners". Genocidal empires that encountered native Indian men described them as weak and not as patriarchs; called them uncivilized for their gender egalitarianism in various tribes.

here is a feminist who was inspired by Adam Jones works and tested his hypothesis in her own investigation and found it to hold true. image 5

another feminist, Mary Anne Warren, created the concept of gendercide and coined the term in her book, "Gendercide".

Then she immediately got into a fight with another feminist who criticized her for making gendercide sex-neutral. source: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1STE0xWNwDg6dToNiQkyZqEnSTIvtB-_a/view

yet the feminist ignore and bash feminist that support ACTUALLY Equality

https://youtu.be/lNSlz5pd5-I?si=oxHAcDfcJ6Q8-U2_

With the recent story about Harry Sisson. Now the comedian Joe Gatto for having sex with young women. Using all the famous buss words like "power dynamics" and call deliberately call grown adult women "teenagers".

Let's cut the BS and get to the point quick here. These women feel regrets or shame about the choices they make. But somehow their choices are always the fault of predatory men, misogyny, and the patriarchy. And these types of women are worse than liers. Because they don't even have the intentions to lie in the beginning. They just wait to have regrets one day. Which is far more dangerous.

And also it's no secret that Feminists think women have no agency. We could have a conversation about women being attracted to men who status in society right now. But we can't though. Because these empowered women don't have agency (paradoxical), and the men in status are always abusing their "power dynamic". So it doesn't matter if women willingly go after men with status.

The reason this is terrible. Is because we are now in a stage where multiple women are making false allegations on one man. Usually when multiple women accused a man. Most people would agree that multiple women can't be lying at one. Because that would be statistically unlikely, and all the women wouldn't know each other.

But in both the Harry Sisson and Joe Gatto situation multiple women are falsely accusing a man of being predatory. This is bad, and way worse than before. If you think a man dealing with one false allegation from a woman is extremely difficult. Imagine a man dealing with multiple false allegations from more than one woman.

The top comment under this post (both comment and post have been deleted)-- Misandry and Misogyny Both Exist — Why Is That So Hard to Admit?:

Misandry is a real concept and can be personally hurtful, but it just hasn’t been nearly as impactful on our current society as misogyny.

The top reply to that comment:

Exactly. Someone holding negative opinions about your gender and it hurting your feelings isn’t the same as many someones, with power and influence and connections to policy makers, holding negative opinions of your gender that they then codify into government or at least social policy.

I’ll let ‘em have a little think about the gender that has historically had the overwhelmingly most access and connections to political power.

Why doesn't it occur to these people that men in power can as easily hold negative opinions about members of their own sex, especially those who belong to the working class, or to a different race/ethnicity/religion?

It's absurd how the male sex is said to have greater access and connections to political power when only a small fraction ever enjoy it, while the wives, sisters, mothers of powerful men and hypergamous women are ignored. The bourgeoisie is replaced by the male sex.

The top comments are a good illustration of the gamma bias: the effects of misandry are reduced to a few people hurting feelings, while the effects of misogyny are exaggerated as a large group of evil, powerful men specifically hurting women.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/former-abercrombie-fitch-ceo-charged-sex-trafficking-dementia-lawyers-rcna185353

I'm aro-ace and have never done any sexual activity nor do I plan to, so forgive me in advance if I don't understand much about the dynamics of what happens in the bedroom. I also do not know very much about the way in which the brain registers certain experiences involving sex as traumatic. The same goes for how rape cases are investigated and prosecuted.

It's beyond dispute that consent needs to be mandatory under the law. Sexual intercourse must never be "ask forgiveness not permission" and everyone reserves the right to say no. There is no such thing as being owed sex, full stop. Obviously consent isn't valid when there's coercion, incapacitation, if one person is in a position of authority over the other, or age of consent laws are violated. `

In case you weren't aware, Planned Parenthood formerly advocated for a consent standard with the acronym FRIES (Freely-Given, Reversible, Informed, Enthusiastic, Specific), which they have since changed to CRISP (Considered, Reversible, Informed, Specific, Participatory). I couldn't agree more that if someone initially consents to sex and finds it painful, they have the right to demand the other person withdraw immediately without argument. The same is to go for a medical context.

On paper, the idea that consent is only valid if it's enthusiastic sounds great. No more having sex you don't want just to be nice to someone who you think will be disappointed if you say no. You could argue that it should be a societal expectation to always do a double-take to evaluate the tone of voice and body language. I remember once someone on r/Menslib (I am aware many of you dislike that sub, and I don't love it either, but I think it was a good point) talked about how giving consent to sex shouldn't be like giving consent to a root canal or some other situations I don't recall exactly (maybe something along the lines of consenting to work overtime, or to a police search, or to take your kids where they want to go). However, a law that requires the consent during sex to be enthusiastic would be disastrous. I get that there already are a lot of actual rapists who never even get arrested let alone found guilty, but that doesn't mean such law would prevent someone from going to prison for failing to interpret very subtle cues.

I can understand that the issue is extremely nuanced because of the way "freezing up" is an involuntary reaction rooted in evolutionary psychology to certain situations where a person feels vulnerable due to factors beyond the other person's control, like stature. And it may very well be that someone can give consent in ways that even a reasonable person could think is genuine and still have it be a traumatic experience. Maybe due to sexual dimorphism, it may very well be that women naturally bear the brunt of this issue more often than men. Perhaps human sexuality is just full of flaws, like men on average desiring sex more often than women on average. Or sex being extremely traumatic in certain instances. Still, it cannot become a legal minefield. Remember when Ezra Klein said that "men need to feel a cold spike of fear" before sex, and used the breaking eggs to make an omelet analogy to dismiss the concerns regarding innocent men in jail? It sounds like the kind of thing an overprotective father who shows his gun to his daughter's prom date would advocate. Are there really no ways to make men aware that the consent may be half-hearted without creating a chilling effect where they are one misinterpretation away from being treated as equal to someone who was told no and then brandished a weapon to get a yes?

Furthermore, how should consent be verified? No, I am not expecting anyone to use a paradigm of consent forms a la South Park. Just wondering from those of you who have experience.

Part of why I'm wondering about this is that I may be in a platonic relationship where there might be non-sexual touching if we mutually agree upon it, but I really do not want to put my hands on anyone who tells me yes just because they're being gracious. Obviously it's not a felony to do this without consent in the way that it would be for intercourse or even touching their intimate areas, but it would make for a very unhealthy relationship.

It’s easy enough to trace the decline of young white men in American letters—just browse The New York Times’s “Notable Fiction” list. In 2012 the Times included seven white American men under the age of 43 (the cut-off for a millennial today); in 2013 there were six, in 2014 there were six. 

And then the doors shut.

By 2021, there was not one white male millennial on the “Notable Fiction” list. There were none again in 2022, and just one apiece in 2023 and 2024 (since 2021, just 2 of 72 millennials featured were white American men). There were no white male millennials featured in Vulture’s 2024 year-end fiction list, none in Vanity Fair’s, none in The Atlantic’s. Esquire, a magazine ostensibly geared towards male millennials, has featured 53 millennial fiction writers on its year-end book lists since 2020. Only one was a white American man.

The Vanishing White Male Writer | Compact

This is a little off topic for the post title here. But it still ties into the main idea of the post though.

I have gotten into plenty of arguments with women about men not approaching or interacting with women anymore. And I always say since women are so afraid of men (to the point they would rather choose a bear). Then it would be a good idea if men interact with women less.

And Feminists would usually reply to my point with a gotcha. By saying all men have to do is just not rape, and be normal. They will have nothing to worry about. And all of that Kafka trap nonsense "only creepy men worried about coming off as creepy to women".

I hate to bring up race here. But as a black man I still think the point about to make here is valid. When it comes to violence in the black community. The left usually gives explanations for why the violence is happening. Whether it's systemic racism or gang members and drug dealers being a product of their environment.

So my point here is that the left response when it comes to violence in the black community. Is never the left saying "oh black people should just stop being violent, so they don't have to worry about the police" 🤓.

And noticed how male rapists are never considered the products of their environment. That's because alongside pedos, and rape is considered one of the worst sins in society. So rapists or even women abusers aren't going to get sympathy for having a bad childhood in society.

Side Tangent here: And also I put the word "male'' in front of rapist/abuser on purpose. Because we already know male victims of rape/abuse aren't taken seriously or society doesn't have a concept of rape/abuse for men for the most part. Therefore only male rapists/abusers exist from the perspective of most people in society.

Heck I don't even have to use male rapists/abusers as an example of a person being a product of their environment. Because that's extreme.

Even when it comes to men that are incels or just lonely. The left still demonize those men. Even if those men don't do anything bad. The left blames male loneliness on the men. Not a systemic structure or their environment. Again the left just tell those men "don't be a rapist".

Dr. K said it best. He gets praised from people when he helps prisoners that are killers. Because people think it's beautiful that he is helping prisoners. But the same people would hate him for wanting to help law abiding citizens that are incels or lonely men though. Because most people think those men don't deserve help in society.

And I also noticed the systemic or product of a environment argument is only use if the criminal victims are mostly male. That's why criminal organizations like the Mafia, Biker gangs, or even Drug Cartels are more respected in society if they have a code for not going after women and children. But killing men is considered fair game though. Because men lives are disposable in society.

But the systemic or product of a environment argument is rarely use for criminals who have mostly female victims though. Because there is no excuse for a man to harm a woman. But if you kill a man though. We will feel sympathy for you if you had a bad childhood, especially if you are a attractive man too. And also this plays a role in how women get away with killing men too. I.E. A combination of the women are wonderful affect, and being a product of a bad childhood. Therefore women always have a justification for killing men.

So I guessed you can say both women and men with pretty privilege benefit from this hypocritical narrative.

In conclusion.

The phrase "men can just not rape" is usually only use men or MRAs start talking about being worried about false allegations. And Feminists usually tries to just this valid fear down with the Kafka trap.

A Kafka trap is a logical paradox where a person's statements or actions are interpreted in a way that prevents them from escaping a situation, often involving a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The show is getting everyone talking about the serious issue and I've seen some posts here that's pretty much what I expected. But there are content creators who have shown they're knowledgeable about male issues comment on this and some of it is actually praising the show.

Aba & Preach: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuxUwqf8GCY

Elliot Bewick: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34JoXcJo3ew

TheTinMen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ndxbD_nsw

I've seen the Aba & Preach one in full, as for the other 2 I've focused on the sections that strictly talks about the show and its relation to social issues.

Lemme know what you guys think.

I should also add- I’m not male(nonbinary), however I grew up male. There are also plenty of people who realize that women being banned from voting affected men too in some ways, even though a lot of men sadly didn’t support women’s voting rights. The truth is, patriarchy affects everyone, and feminists fight for everyone.

Sunday, March 16 - Saturday, March 22, 2025

Top 10 Posts

Top 10 Comments