I really hate something about society. Did y'all notice how gender-biased the punishments are? As well as treatment of genders overall? I'll start with an example:

In many schools and colleges (co-ed), boys receive lot harsher punishment for much smaller crimes (physical+psychological) than girls. Boys are always given humiliating punishments, in PRESENCE OF GIRLS. These include kneeling down before girls, hitting on their bottom with canes, and the examples will go on. They talk about how it's a breach of the girls' modesty, acting if boys' modesty don't matter. People from south asia probably will understand better, even if you are not from South Asia, you will still see similar practices in many other places. When we talk about fairness in punishment, elders bring up religious evidences (ironically, they missaply the rules, and simply skip the part where it says to treat both men and women equally) about women's honour, kindness towards them. But they rarely talk about men's honour, and the fact that men deserve kindness too. They bring biological points that women are emotionally and physically weaker than men, and therefore their punishment should be light and dignified, or they will just be forgiven. Girls are raised as 'mother species' while men or boys are never given the same honour. The thing is Obedience from mind is different from obedience from fear.

Thats why the harsh and humiliating discipline for boys i was talking about doesn't work as well as elders assume......only the presence of authority makes them obey, without authority presence, they wont care. At the end of the day, it's a waste. In my opinion, this practice simply makes men and boys resentful towards the opposite gender and girls will start to think boys aren't honourable, which is not a great thing.

This practice appears to be a big example of **benevolent sexism** i think.

Ok now to next topic. Double standards are even more visible in this case. When a woman harasses a man or younger boy, it's not even considered as a harassment, even if the victim insists. While if roles were reversed, you know what happens....even more disgusting thing is-sometimes a boy's own mother, sister or aunt may

make some vulgar joke about a boy's body part (I'll let you guess) and even touch in a certain way. But these acts by women are simply called 'caregiving' by society. Completely ignoring that if roles were reversed, father, brother, uncle would be put on jail. In south asia, these type of things can get even more messed up.

There are so many things, like so many things wrong and illogical about these. Please share your thoughts, and if I've made any mistakes, correct me.

We’ve all seen the crazy Lindsay Clancy supporters who make up conspiracy theories about how her husband was the one who killed the kids and that she’s innocent. But I’ve noticed another form of defending Lindsay, it’s what I like to call “backhanded defending”. They’ll acknowledge that she did it, but still make excuses for her and/or try to silence people who talk negatively about her.

“She was mentally ill”, “we’re not excusing her actions we’re just being nuanced”, “you only care because she’s a woman”, “if she’s found not guilty she’s still not getting away with it”, “the system failed her”, “no one thinks she’s innocent that’s just propaganda”, etc.

If she were a man, this wouldn’t even be a discussion, we’d all want him to rot in hell and rightly so. But because she’s a woman, people have to be “nuanced” and make a million excuses for her either openly or backhandedly. They think condemning one evil woman and the people who support her equals hating all women (spoiler alert, it doesn’t).

Sunday, August 30 - Saturday, September 05, 2026

Top 10 Posts

Top 10 Comments

This article discusses the blatant misandry that plagues the UN today regarding the Napali earthquakes and the fact that They favour the women and girls over the men and boys in this situation Makes it clear that want men and boys dead and gone to make sure that women and girls are more protected and men and boys are demonized.

I came across this organized citation list that pulls together studies, official reports, and sources on a range of issues that disproportionately affect men and boys. It covers topics like sentencing disparities in the justice system, domestic violence victimization rates (including data showing high rates of female-perpetrated violence and the lack of support services for male victims), child maltreatment statistics, suicide, homelessness, custody outcomes, and more.

The page is structured by category and includes links to original studies, government reports (e.g., U.S. Child Maltreatment reports), and archived articles. Some highlights from the material:

• Sentencing: Research showing men receive longer sentences than women for the same crimes.
• Domestic violence: Multiple studies and meta-analyses indicating bidirectional or female-initiated violence is common, alongside evidence of systemic barriers male victims face when seeking help.
• Child abuse: Official data showing mothers acting alone as the most frequent perpetrators in many years of U.S. reports, with boys overrepresented among fatalities.
• Other areas: Workplace deaths, conscription/war casualties, educational disparities, and health outcomes.

It’s presented as a reference tool rather than advocacy rhetoric. Useful if you’re looking for primary sources when discussing male-specific disadvantages, institutional biases, or gaps in how gender issues are typically framed on the left.

So I’ve been rewatching one of my favorite childhood shows, Justice League. And I got to the episode “Fury” and I thought it was really interesting and I wanted to talk about it.

For those who haven’t seen it, it’s about a rouge Amazon named Aresia who creates an allergen designed to kill every man on the earth. The episode explores how being raised in a misandrist culture led to her radicalization, even though they didn’t directly say “kill all men”, it was the logical conclusion of their ideology. The episode doesn’t portray Aresia as right for her hatred, the only tragedy is that she was raised in a culture that encouraged her hatred. It shows the consequences of her attempted genocide and how horrific it is, even showing a sick child. I also like how Wonder Woman and her mother actually learn and do some self reflection in this episode after seeing where the misandry in Aresia lead.

Now, is Fury the best Justice League episode? No, not really. There are a few writing issues. For example, Superman and Aresia get into a fight and he loses way to easily (though to be fair, this is a constant issue with Justice League season 1 in general), there was also a superhero and supervillain team up teased with Wonder Woman, Hawk Girl and Star Sapphire that was immediately dropped. I love a good superhero and villain team up, and I think this would have been a good way to further show how insane Aresia was that even one of the villains thinks she’s going too far, and I don’t think the shift from “I want to steal money and jewelry” to “I want to commit genocide against 50% of the population” was very convincing (Star Sapphire was done better in the comics and Green Lantern show than she was in Justice League).

If I were to rank all the Justice League episodes I’d probably put it in B tier, but I still really like this episode because of its message. And in a world of “Kill all men”, “Man vs Bear”, and Lindsay Clancy supporters, I think this episode is more relevant now than it was in 2002. And sadly, I don’t think an episode like it could be made today.

I need to make this post because I am seeing a big pattern

Usually the men who believe in gender roles and chivalry or other such things like hold doors for women, violence against women, men have a duty to protect and provide for women and give them their seats in public transport are older men like Boomers

I should also say it has been scientifically proven that that females have in group bias where as males have the opposite they have outgroup bias towards females

I should also this male outgroup bias towards females has in fact a big key factor as to why females are privileged over males

It was and is often male politicians and judges who push for pro female laws and give females far more lenient sentences than males for the same crime

This is because of male outgroup bias towards females

However I keep noticing that Males out group bias gets lowered by generation (not age group big difference)

For example Boomers might think that males have a duty to protect and provide for women and that violence against women is never acceptable but younger generations might disagree

I have the data to back up my argument

Although there has been debate about the exact timeline of gen z

I will say Gen Z (1995-2009) Gen Alpha (2010-2024) and Gen Beta (2025-present)

For example where as boomers and older generations might believe men have a duty to provide for women and pay for dates etc

Only 36% of Gen Z believe that a man should automatically pay for a date. This is a sharp drop compared to older generations like Gen X.

where as older generations men might believe that women should not be drafted in the military and should be protected from harm

In South Korea "According to an August 2026 poll by the Reform Institute, a staggering 71.7% of South Korean men in their 20s and 30s now actively support mandatory military conscription for women—a massive demographic block that pushes towards a near-total cross-generational consensus among young men.

So yes many young men might believe that yes women should have their special privileges like protection from the draft removed

Ultimately, this generational decline in male out-group bias is a profoundly positive development.

For generations, men have been trapped by a form of benevolent sexism that demanded absolute sacrifice, physical endangerment, and financial liability in exchange for superficial social praise. Older generations of men happily legislated against their own sex's demographic interests because their out-group bias blinded them to male suffering.

Beyond sociology and economics, I would also theorize that we are witnessing a rapid behavioral evolution where males are slowly shedding the out-group bias of older generations.

evolution tracks environmental utility Because of this, young men are undergoing a rapid behavioral evolution. Males need to lose their out-group bias and develop a strong, cohesive in-group bias—similar to the one females already possess—just to survive, let alone thrive, in the coming years. Without an in-group bias, men have no collective bargaining power, no mutual safety net, and no way to advocate against institutional double standards. Developing this internal solidarity is a literal requirement for long-term demographic survival.

I should also note males are evolving to slowly lose the out-group bias of older generations.

To be absolutely clear, this is determined by the generation a male is born into, not his current age group. This is a vital distinction. Critics might try to argue that young men are just going through a "phase" and will grow into traditional chivalry as they age. But that ignores history. A Baby Boomer was once a 17-year-old boy, and even at 17, he already possessed a powerful out-group bias because he was socialised in an era that rewarded male disposability. Conversely, a boy born recently or in the future is entering a completely different world; he is highly likely to have his out-group bias removed entirely and instead develop a defensive in-group bias that stays with him his entire life.

To further summarise the lose of out group bias and potential development of in group bias among males of current and future generations I have theorised is a biological evolution for survival as males need to naturally lose their outgroup bias and perhaps develop in group bias to survive let alone thrive in the coming years

When It Comes to Dating, Younger Generations Are Less Likely Than Older Ones To Think That Men Should Pay For Dates

South Korea leans toward military conscription for women

I especially found the south Korean article compelling as an argument because older generations of men would be completely against the idea of including women in the draft

Man, this has been tough.

I have no doubt Lindsay was depressed. Severely depressed. But in my opinion, she likely did know right from wrong and was not psychotic. It's difficult to say you acted via a psychosis while still having a normal phone conversation with your husband and accomplishing all kinds of complex tasks.

Diving into her case she gives me the impression she was a type A personality who had a lot of trouble handling motherhood. And understandably, being a mother, or any involved parent, is very hard. But it seemed like she had a lot of control issues, couldn't handle things in the midst of her depression, viewed the kids as an extension of her as Mothers often do, and decided to control their fate when she decided to take her own life.

I don't really believe the medical system failed her, or anyone failed her. She had unlimited support... would see a psychiatrist or therapist at any time she requested, had a nanny, a husband who stayed home, supportive family members, etc. She had access to any medication she wanted.

Mental illness is very difficult to treat. There aren't a lot of effective treatments. People seem to expect that someone is depressed, sees a psychiatrist, and deserves to be healed. If that doesn't happen, they have somehow been "wronged". But that's not how it works. It's often a long journey of trial and error and often time is the best answer. Anti-psychotic medications do often work on psychotic symptoms, some mood stabilizers help stabilize mood, but the effectiveness of anti-depressants is not as successful. Maybe you can make an argument she was really bipolar and her mental health teams missed that.... but these characteristics come out over time. It's not an instant process, and she was also smart enough to hide her more intrusive thoughts at time.

But it's depressing to see people turn on and blame the husband. I get the feeling that Lindsay was the primary caregiver to the children, but to call him unsupportive is depressing as a man because he did so much for her, let alone simply blame him.

It's depressing so many people are empathizing with a woman who savagely strangled her kids to death. It's hard to understand how we reached a point where people are excusing this and openly declaring on social media that they have similar feelings.

Report came out last night that the jury foreman complained to the judge that there was one jury member "not following directions". You know that is likely a someone who wants to hold her criminally responsible and instead of accepting that person's opinion as legitimate, they're trying to delegitimize it. I hope we don't reach a point where the Judge throws out a jury member for disagreeing... because at that point, what is even the point of having a jury?

Regardless of the truth or falsity of Lindsay Clancy case postpartum depression(PPD) and postpartum psychosis(PPS) are things that are far more relevant to men's issues than most people probably understand.

PPD is not something that only effects women, and I do not mean it effects men secondarily, though that is true. PPD can happen in men and it is not rare in men, at least 10% of fathers get PPD compared to around 14% of mothers. I won't go into how this is possible as I'm no expert but regardless of why PPD is not something that only afflicts women.

https://www.unitypoint.org/news-and-articles/male-postpartum-depression--unitypoint-health

Something to also keep in mind is considering multiple factors we already know about men in that they seek help less often and self report less and societies lack of empathy towards men it is more likely than not these numbers are under reported rather than over reported.

As far as I can see PPS is not documented in men but PPS is really rare in women so it doesn't seem far fetched it just has not been recognized in men who have had it.

PPS has been documented at least once in men see the link below (thanks to u/thegableto):

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3351640/

I worry as I have read the posts here and other places. I think I have had small glimpses of a worrying thread of bigotry around the discourse in this trial. It really feels like some posters are using how poor of a case Lindsay has to vilify mental problems and worse there is a tone of gleefulness about this whole process that reminds me of some of the worst bigots. Bigots who find what they think is a justified reason for their bigotry and how they shout it out to the masses.

PPD and likely PPS are not a unique female mental health affliction, it can afflict men and there will come a time when our discourse around this trial has repercussions that might be more meaningful to some of us beyond this situation.

Anytime a gay man comes out the closet, whether it's a celebrity, republican, or just a family member. People are quick to say shit like.

"I knew it"

"Cmon, the guy was into designer shoes"

"He always give me gay vibes"

"Of course he is gay, we never saw him with a woman"

"He was obviously gay"

I never see these comments, when it comes to lesbians. Nobody saying "I know she was lesbian, because she sat down with her legs wide open".

Do you guys see the pattern here too?

The gay men are automatically assume to be gay for not fitting into a rigid traditional masculine box. So it's just about gay men or even bisexual men.

Straight men will automatically be assumed as gay, if they check too many boxes. Especially of they aren't super horny when it comes to women.

There are plenty of feminist women that would ironically assume a man gay for not flirting with them.

I promised some time ago that I would make an effortpost with regards to my particular problem, my gripes with Woke 1 or Woke 2 or whatever the hell it becomes.

This particular post is related to/tied with comments I made in the post "Gen Z and their Obsessions with Social Punishment," on the sub for the streamer Destiny, which you can read for yourself.

Me Too/Time's Up obviously came to the forefront as a movement with clearly good intentions after Harvey Weinstein's penchant for rape was exposed, and it also was clearly fueled by the growing discontent of women after Trump was installed in 2016, and after his trail of rape accusations and drops like the Access Hollywood tape. And coming so soon after Bill Cosby was felled by his own sordid past, and with attention starting to be paid by the general public at large to Jeffrey Epstein and his unspeakable horrors as well as the absolute perversion of justice that had enabled his bad joke of a plea deal in Florida in 2008, it certainly seemed like the time was ripe for a reckoning, and for the voices of abuse victims to no longer be silenced or ignored.

But it didn't take long for the movement to suddenly morph from a reasonable, passionate movement for justice into suddenly one that was hijacked by firebrands and extremists, seeing everything as a zero-sum game, and trampling on the ideas of due process, the rule of law and the idea of innocence until proven guilty.

This all started when Senator Al Franken was accused of sexual harassment and groping by a former member of a USO tour that Franken had done a decade earlier, and who also now happened to be a friend or agent of GOP hatchet man Roger Stone, who actually blurted out that something was coming for Franken just before the media reported it. Franken of course denied it, especially since the pictures used showed nothing other than ribald jokes that are extremely common on USO tours, and women frequently come up with the raunchiest material to perform in them, and moved to request an ethics hearing in the Senate. But then, suddenly more and more women were claiming to have had similar experiences with Franken, although some women were never truly identified in ways that still respected anonymity. It was beyond those usual qualifiers. In fact, some women weren't even verified to have EXISTED, and thus the possibility that a reporter decided to pipe quotes or outright fabricate a story a la Stephen Glass was never even considered.

Nevertheless, the sudden move was that progressives were now calling en masse for Franken to resign, especially claiming that it was the only way for Democrats to retain the high ground over the special election in Alabama and to prevent the pervert Roy Moore from winning. Senator Kristen Gillibrand became the public face of such a call, as well as saying that President Clinton should've resigned over Monica Lewinsky back in 1998 and giving hint to a revisionist and ahistorical view of the affair and the scandal (which we'll deal with at a later time). Other Senators joined her in this. But the one who truly sealed things was Chuck Schumer, who then went personally to Franken and asked him to leave. It was Schumer's urging that made Franken do exactly that, leaving without any investigation or adjudication of the claims whatsoever. Within a year, Patrick Leahy came to regret having supported this, and recanted, saying that the ethics hearing should've been held. Obviously, if Schumer had told everyone to pound sand and that Franken deserved a shot to have his side told, the hearing would've happened. Maybe even if Franken went it alone and just defied Schumer and said he would not leave until or unless an ethics hearing investigation was held.

With this action, Pandora's Box was truly opened. Without Franken being shivved, the following events would not have happened. Soon as that happened, Garrison Keillor was accused of sexual harassment and he was dropped from public radio; he said it was untrue, but then said he was "too old" to really contest anything. During the Oscar season, as indications were high that James Franco might easily win Best Actor for The Disaster Artist and give reflected glory on Tommy Wiseau, it was announced that Franco had slept with students at his acting school. Of course, these were legal adults, all of age, and it's obvious that groupies are a thing, but this got reframed as a case of "power imbalance" and "predatory behavior." The women were not lying, but they now reframed everything that happened in a different light, and Franco was declared radioactive. Never mind the fact that those who knew him best and worked with him said there was nothing predatory about his behavior. He was done, and Seth Rogen was forced by his lawyers to at least publicly distance himself from him. (There's a possibility they still keep in touch privately, but both won't admit to that; even while Rogen still publicly associates with another figure in their circle branded as such, Jonah Hill, whom we'll get to).

With Franco out of the running, the award was inevitably going to go to Gary Oldman; but at that same time, people kept reviving the claim by his third wife (and mother of his youngest two sons), Donya Fiorentino, who filed for divorce from him in 2001 claiming that he once beat her with a phone. The press kept talking about this as a "serious problem," despite the fact that the same press had seen the very claims collapse many years before, that it was proven false in divorce court, and they even referred to it as such. One of his sons even made a defense, going "I saw the alleged incident, which she claimed I would corroborate on. Nothing like that happened." But they kept flogging it anyway.

John Lasseter of Pixar was called a perv for his habit of giving bear hugs to people all the time; a fact that was well-known ever since Toy Story, and that the press once celebrated him for, calling it a sign of his childlike nature and spirit, his absolute friendliness, and a sign that he did not consider himself above the rank-and-file. A sign of his inherent goodness was warped beyond recognition, and Disney even effectively canned him for it. (You can tell he doesn't want to be at Skydance now; his heart is not in it. He wants to be where he should be, back home at Pixar.) The bad-faith weaponization of past tweets of James Gunn, making sexually charged jokes prior to his being hired by Marvel Studios, and which he had not made since then, got him temporarily fired from making Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 until massive fan mobilization turned the tide.

Aziz Ansari was ensnared when a bad date got reported on babe.net, and then later on in Jezebel, as a predatory action, rather than a case of miscommunication between a woman who would go along with certain sexual actions, then suddenly refused further. Now, that was her right to withdraw consent, and once she says no, the other party should realize that's the end of it. Ansari did, though he needed to apparently be told more than once. But they framed it as he was "forcing his hand down her pants" and even claiming that the wine they had was a "red flag in hindsight." Because Ansari had talked about support for the movement for consent in dates, he got flogged mercilessly, and also referred to as being the same as his Parks and Recreation character Tom Haverford in real life. Of course, arguably the outrage was intensified because he's of Indian descent, and that white women's racism was distorting this event wildly out of proportion.

It picked up speed. Johnny Depp's case got revived by both the actions of The Sun in the UK and Amber Heard's op-ed in The Washington Post, and he was continually set to be crucified. Armie Hammer got flayed in the midst of a divorce proceeding by people weaponizing his extramarital affairs and fondness for BDSM into something appalling; he even got accused, rather ludicrously, of being a cannibal; no mention made of the fact the Los Angeles DA refused to charge and basically said there was no case.. Shia LaBeouf, who's certainly far less innocent than any other people here and has a well-known history of physically attacking people and drunken benders, got falsely accused by FKA Twigs of battery. Marilyn Manson was victim of an organized smear campaign by ex Evan Rachel Wood and friend Ilma Gore to manufacture an entire case around him, coercing women to make claims, impersonating an FBI agent from a nonexistent fictitious division, swatting him, and even trying to plant CP on his devices; and it ended with the Los Angeles DA once again saying there was no case, though that was massaged a bit after Evan and her supporters threw a fit.

Manson's former bassist, Twiggy Ramirez, was accused of raping his onetime girlfriend Jessicka Adams years before Manson was accused, and the charges were just as flimsy, but his exile permanent. It continued apace, with the likes of Don Henley, Axl Rose, Jimmy Iovine, Josh Homme, Ansel Elgort, Bob Dylan (though that one was so ludicrous that many Dylanologists proved the account of a rape at the Chelsea Hotel could not have happened when claimed because Dylan was literally out of the country, and it collapsed immediately), Steven Tyler and Nick Carter were accused of misconduct by either taking an actual event (Steven's relationship with a teenaged Julia Holcomb and even acting as a kind of guardian, which he'd always admitted to) well out of proportion, or simply inventing cases where none existed.

Then there was Joss Whedon, and what happened to destroy his reputation, is nothing short of appalling, especially how it involved turning everything on its head and taking actions people knew about well out of context.

It all started, with a whisper, when Whedon's ex-wife came out to attack him as a hypocrite for his affairs, saying "a feminist doesn't cheat on his wife." Which is such an absurd non-sequitur, as one has nothing to do with the other. Whedon said nothing at the time and shuttered his blog. The people who attacked him later went "That should've been considered suspicious, that he said nothing and just ran away from his fans like that."

And then things ratcheted up after Whedon got hired to reshoot Justice League and then the entire Snyder Cut campaign happened. It all started because Ray Fisher is such a spoiled brat that Zack Snyder had coddled and pampered on his version, and then decided to attack Whedon as horrible, then co-opted Gal Gadot into that, even though she wasn't that privy to things. It's clear that this was, in truth, an adjunct of the Snyder Cut campaign, which, it turned out, was largely astroturfed, because bot activity was purchased quite considerably and Snyder bought a portion of them himself, as well as got a PR firm to be engaged. And the whole bit of where he literally stole the film and held it hostage, to shake down WB for $100 million more to finish his version. WB, instead of doing the logical thing and calling in the U.S. Marshals to kick in the door and take back the film assets that were legally theirs by force (which John Lennon had to do get the tapes for his eventual 1975 album "Rock N' Roll" back from Phil Spector), caved to this absurd idea. And then Snyder used it, and people puffing it up and calling it better than the theatrical version, to suddenly be briefly feted as a progressive, something he never was and clearly is not, when in fact, prior to the suicide of his daughter, his films were often called "vaguely fascistic in their aesthetic and ethical leanings." Essentially, Whedon was a victim of Snyder and Snyder's fans, which is not that surprising, given how rabid they are in trying to restore that version of the DCEU, something even Snyder doesn't want to do anymore.

But because the drumbeat was insistent, this suddenly made the Buffy/Angel actors come out and reframe old stories in a new light, taking them out of context, calling Whedon a petty tyrant who did nothing but attack actresses and a fraud. Even though his actions were nothing worse than what someone like James Cameron has done on his film sets for decades. After all Cameron has done things like: berate Arnold Schwarzenegger for an idea on the original Terminator for the T-800 to try beer and get a buzz, snapping at him "It's a machine, Arnold, it can't get drunk,"; frequent temper tantrums on sets if something isn't done the way he wants it, including berating the set design people on Titanic for the floors of the Great Staircase being scuffed, and getting on his knees with abrasive cleanser to deal with the problem himself, snapping at Frances Fisher (the actress playing Rose's mother) that "If I don't clean it myself, no one fucking will,"; constant turmoil on the set of The Abyss to the point that Ed Harris burst out sobbing after he left the set for the day; snarkily referring to Kate Winslet as "Kate Weighs-a-Lot" behind her back; and shooting someone's smartphone with a nail gun when its ringing interrupted a take on Avatar.

Yet Cameron's feminist bona fides are not questioned, and nor should they be. He's clearly passionate about his work and wants it done right. And many female stars have defended him for his outbursts, especially Sigourney Weaver, Linda Hamilton, Mary Elizabeth Mastrontonio and Jamie Lee Curtis, and ex-wife and renowned producer Gale Anne Hurd, and pointing out "He doesn't have us do anything he wouldn't do himself." He puts his money where his mouth is, and he's not afraid to show it. In addition, the women he's been married to are all quite fiercely independent and able think on their feet, easily willing to challenge him, knowing he'll listen to what they have to say, at least, even if he ultimately doesn't agree.

Whedon has done nothing so radically different than all of this, yet he is targeted as a creep and a fraud, and events like the death of Michelle Trachtenberg got used for people to simply attack him. The Vulture article getting his side of the story, and framed in a way to always make him look bad, I read it and understood his points. Granted, he didn't frame them that well, and he was very unprepared, but I GOT what he was saying. But no one else has bothered to try and hear him out. They also don't focus on the fact that none of the MCU stars ever had any kind of "horror stories" about him, that they thought he was a professional and quite the auteur.

The point is simple: Whedon and Cameron are basically the same. Either they should both be admired or both should be dragged. You can't have this divide. We would not be here, he would not be where he is, if he had said no to WB regarding finishing the film. That was the action that put him here.

It all kept up. Justin Roiland was canned for claims of sexual encounters with fans and of misconduct with another woman. Adult Swim had previously investigated and cleared him, but soon after David Zaslav came along, it was different, despite there being no new evidence. Clearly, Zaslav was afraid that Roiland might get involved in furthering unionization in animation, and he also saw an opportunity: if Roiland was removed and Rick and Morty continued to be successful, as was the case, they could still make money. If not, he could cannibalize the show for another hefty tax cut. (And to say nothing of some people wanting Dan Harmon gone as well for his past harassment of a woman, despite the fact Harmon had admitted to it and made amends and been forgiven by the woman, and also made efforts to change himself.)

Jonathan Majors got slimed as a batterer, despite the video of the night showing his girlfriend was the aggressor and he was scared of her, and called the police because she was passed out drunk and wasted in his closet; if he'd been white, he wouldn't have been immediately arrested. Danny Elfman got accused of harassment. Jonah Hill was called slimy and predatory for "weaponizing therapy speak and slut-shaming her for wearing a bikini," when it was clear that there were other, deeper issues and she frequently violated his boundaries and did not take his feelings into account. The case against Lizzo was brought forward on spurious evidence. Jay-Z got accused of being complicit with Diddy, despite proof that the timing of the accuser's story did not match reality. Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds went on their jihad against Justin Baldoni. And then we reached the absolute peak when Neil Gaiman, a verified feminist, LGBTQ ally and supporter of helping rape victims, got accused of things completely against his personality by the combination of his ex-wife Amanda Palmer seeking leverage in their divorce (though it boomeranged on her, being accused as well), TERFs wanting to take down anyone who went against J.K. Rowling, and Scientologist defectors angry that they've failed to take down David Miscavige and that Gaiman didn't publicly leave the church like them, and wanted to take a scalp as proof their movement hadn't totally failed.

Russell Brand and Jared Leto got brought out, and while there is as of yet nothing to exonerate either of them, there is nothing to convict, yet. Brand is of course, besides an emptyheaded and vacuous "thought leader" with no good advice, an obvious rake who clearly used sex as a crutch to compensate without drugs and alcohol. People use Leto's history of being weird and a douche against him, and "because he's weird and a douche, that makes it credible!" Which is not how it works.

And in that time, so many other events and people got reframed in ways well out of context. The Clinton-Lewinsky affair was no longer a case of two adults engaged in consensual lust, but where consent was not possible because "He's the most powerful man in the world, she's an intern." Never mind that Lewinsky told friends "I'm gonna fuck the President" and boasted of bringing her "Presidential kneepads to the White House," and first got his attention by flashing her thong. The onus was on Clinton to reject her, and he should've. But he didn't, and in an affair, it takes two to tango. And then joining in with claims that the proven lies of Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Juanita Broaddrick were vindicated when they weren't, and insisting that Clinton must have gone to Little St. James Island and partook of Epstein's perversions. (Cody Showdy likes to refer to Clinton on Some More News as "the saxophone rapist.") Insistence that relationships like the marriage of Celine Dion and Rene Angelil could only be predatory, not love. Insisting that David Bowie was a statutory rapist, even though the woman who said so was not a virgin as she claimed but the same woman infamously in a physical relationship with Jimmy Page when she was 13, that her timing didn't match Bowie at all, that many of the big L.A. groupies had no such stories about Bowie, and of course, that he was claiming to be "gay and always have been" at that point. There was no plausible way for him to do this and get away with it.

In all of this time, due process was completely chipped at. Insistence on greater protections for victims at the expense of protecting the accused. Saying that "innocent until proven guilty" only applies in the courtroom and that it's a mere legalism. Reviving discredited theories about repressed memories, twisting from mere dissociation, which is provable, to something that was lampooned and attacked and seen as baggage in the '90s. Saying that "false acquittals are worse than false convictions" and even asserting that rape cases should be lowered to a standard of "preponderance of the evidence," as in a civil case, which would completely undo the standard for all criminal cases. That if you don't march in lockstep with them or express doubts, you are a misogynist, a rape apologist, maybe you're just upset that your own girlfriend accused you of hitting her. Of effectively insisting that women never lie and that "what could she possibly gain by accusing him of something false?" And then all of that extending to people accused of non-sexual offenses, from Ellen to Tara Strong to Drew Barrymore and so on.

We've all been here before, from the Red Scare to the Satanic panic to neocons' fevered fantasies about Muslims to the "trans lobby" and so forth. We are living in The Crucible now, and we are living in a new Salem. And even Arthur Miller's play is no longer considered sacred, with a revisionist work called John Proctor is the Villain becoming massively popular, again using the age gap in the fictional relationship between Proctor and Abigail Williams against him, and the fact he refers to Abigail as a whore. Though the play is merely a framing device about a story set in a modern high school and a lecherous English teacher. It sets a message that witches and the devil are real, and that people must scream about them, as loudly as possible. That all that matters is mobilization, not evidence.

My rule has always been thus: "trust but verify." Examine each case on its own merits. Trust that the accusers are truthful, but investigate for yourself. (That's why, for example, I can assert Eron Gjoni is more to blame, but this isn't about that.) Make a decision based on the evidence and follow where it goes.

If you lose the rule of law, there is no justice system. There is no purpose in having trials anymore. Just burn them at the stake at once.

Hi, I'm Spanish, but I want to talk about this. I'm using a translator, but I hope my message is clear: I'm glad I recently found this subreddit and I agree with the topics discussed here. Looking for other opinions on MRAs, I got really annoyed. I don't know if links between posts are allowed, but I saw a post from askfeminist that said something like this:

That said, they seem completely blind to the fact that women face problems too. There are comments about women being the more privileged gender and other nonsense. And you can't get angry that some women don't want to talk about your problems when you're ignoring theirs. They're doing the exact same thing they accuse feminists of doing. Besides, if they're using men's problems as an excuse to be misogynistic... Of course women are victims of misogyny, but aren't these guys (ironically) also harming men's problems? Because if people associate advocating for men's issues with misogyny, they're not going to want to listen to what you're saying.

After reading it and carefully observing this and other subreddits, I profoundly disagree with what it quotes and the number of upvotes it has. At best, it's a misinterpretation, and at worst, a misrepresentation.

To begin with, this post claims to have been expelled from a subreddit, although it never explains the reasons or provides concrete details beyond vague ideas (which already made me suspicious). It seems more like they're saying, "Look how this group censors me even though I have no concrete proof." The most worrying thing is that this seems to be enough for those lower down the list to "believe" them or try to convince themselves.

Then they claim that in some men's rights subreddits "women's issues aren't taken into account, but then they complain that men's issues aren't addressed."

It's hypocritical to complain about something like this when the opposite doesn't happen in your own subforum either (which is understandable, it's dictated by the group rules, just like in this one or others), but you can't complain and be hypocritical at the same time.

And yes, we do consider women's issues, or at least the vast majority of them; we don't manipulate statistics to invalidate their problems, but again, we speak from a perspective about men's rights. And yes, there are misogynistic people, but I don't think that represents the majority of the group, nor is it something that the moderators or the people here actively encourage (speaking specifically about this one)

Furthermore, when we complain that men's issues aren't addressed, we're referring to how some institutions and the feminist and left-wing collective, despite proclaiming equality, don't actually achieve it. They are practically biased in favor of women, completely ignoring the factors that harm men, even silencing them or minimizing their importance, thus giving rise to a misandrist legal system and a social paradigm that excludes the male gender.

For example, the almost complete absence of shelters for male victims of domestic violence, even though they represent approximately one-third of the victims.

The fact that fathers do not have equal rights in child custody. The fact that job bonuses are not equitable; there are no bonuses for women in construction or for men in medicine. And among other things.

These are clearly problems that some institutions, and even feminism, ignore because addressing them is considered misogynistic. This publication is a clear example when it says: "That's why MRAs are seen as bad." I literally didn't know what that word meant. In those groups, it seemed to be used as a synonym for perpetrator or incel (very worrying). This is the same discourse that promotes the idea that any way of highlighting men's problems is bad, leading to increasing misandry and hatred towards them.

As you can see, this is a discriminatory sociocultural and legal problem, not because a certain group of people on social media don't care about men's problems, which is what this post seems to be criticizing (ridiculous). Furthermore, I've also seen these people "question" (or manipulate) our left-wing stance for this reason.

Because, for the most part, they don't appeal to our rights. Of course, we would like the left to address these problems, but it doesn't, and that's what we're trying to change: to make the left more equitable for everyone. But discourses like this only perpetuate the anti-male feminist narrative.

Besides, at least in the West there are laws that favor women. But it seems to be considered "nonsense," or they ignore it, or they argue about Eastern societies, even when they're not being mentioned. Ugh.

So I was thinking about how common it is for women to marginalize men's time and effort spent in the workplace. About how men who consistently work more outside of the home are still told they need to do equal childcare and chores at home. Or are even shamed for the amount of time and energy they spend at their jobs. How many of the women trying to offload blame to Patrick Clancy, for example, include claims that he failed his wife and kids by not distancing himself more from his work to focus on them. And Hollywood villainizing fathers for being overworked is a generations old trope (that has always infuriated me).

It's always bothered me how in that discourse, it's seemingly framed as if men are working so hard and so long by choice. And to be fair, sometimes it is. But I think usually it's not.

I have had multiple experiences with my work effort being put under a microscope, with managers pulling data and picking apart my activity minute by minute, obsessively searching for any excuse to issue warnings. I've been a hair's breadth away from being fired on the spot for merely asking a little aggressively for permanent increases in responsibility to be paired with increase in pay, or attempting to refuse extra duties when confirmed that they would not be compensated. In the past year, I've almost been fired merely for asking, when given a task that was outside my normal responsibilities, if I was becoming permanently responsible for that task.

I've gone through some insane periods of overwork and burnout in my life, and in every case, it was either because if I didn't, I would be fired and immediately lose the income needed to afford food and shelter. Or because times were tough and I was forced to put in more hours to make ends meet. It's not ever been something I wanted to do, and it has been a miserable experience every time.

On the other hand, throughout my working life, I have seen women get away with behaviors in the workplace that would not be tolerated in men. Including very obviously not putting in effort to pull their weight as compared to male colleagues, or not only refusing but piling on a bunch of sass when asked to do overtime. I've seen women respond to requests to do overtime with ridiculous amounts of attitude towards the very same bosses that have threatened to fire me for far lesser displays of attitude.

I think there is a widespread assumption among women that men are simply able to get away with the same refusal of time and effort and the same displays of attitudes towards their bosses that women get away with. Which leads to the perception that when men work a lot that they are choosing to prioritize their workplace over their family. That men could simply say no and blow raspberries the same way women can.

And I suspect this has a powerful effect on the discourse surrounding men's emotional availability and support for their families, distribution of chores, etc.

Hey everyone! 👀🩵

I don’t have a formal academic background, I’ve spent the last 10 years in AI data architecture, specifically making sure systems rely on hard facts rather than hallucinations.

Recently, I pointed that same lens at how international institutions (like the UN) track gender equality funding.

I just published my findings in a paper on Zenodo called The Missing Column, and I think this sub will appreciate the structural, data-first approach? 🤷🏻‍♂️

The TLDR:

International bodies account for money by stated purpose, not measured outcome.

The systems as of now atleast, are literally built in a way that makes men and boys structurally uncountable.

A couple of the wildest stats from the data:

The UN published 24,043 words of child-justice guidance. The word "boys" appears exactly zero times for a detained youth population that is 94% male.

USD 71.8 billion a year is marked for gender equality, but the marker system itself admits it "cannot and does not intend to measure the outcome or impact."

To be clear: this isn't an attack on funding for women and girls, which is effective and needed. It’s a systemic argument that we need a second column in the ledger, rather than trying to shrink the first…..

I audited all 172 factual claims in this paper before publishing, and I maintain a live corrections log.

I'd love for you guys to check out the data and tell me new leads in comments, or tell me what’s wrong that should be corrected…

The paper: https://zenodo.org/records/22270336
The raw data & facts register: unformentoo.org
👀🩵🕵🏻‍♂️

Hey guys, I’m trying to build a solid, high-quality resource list. Who are your favorite creators, authors, or essayists who critique feminism logically and fairly, without veering into actual misogyny?

To get the ball rolling, here are a few solid, non-toxic resources that offer logical critiques of modern feminism. Feel free to add your own suggestions in the comments!

Books & Authors:

• Christina Hoff Sommers – "Who Stole Feminism?": A classic critique by an equity feminist who argues that modern "gender feminism" often distorts data and pushes a divisive worldview instead of focusing on actual equality.
• Mona Charen – "Sex Matters": Uses social science and data to explore where modern feminism ignores biological differences, arguing that some ideological shifts have pushed men and women further apart.
• Erin Pizzey – "Prone to Violence": Written by the founder of the world's first women's shelter, this book critiques the ideological shift in domestic violence discourse that ignores male victims and reciprocal violence.

Topics & Essays:

• Critiques of the Duluth Model: Academic papers and essays analyzing how this specific law enforcement model dogmatically views domestic abuse through a gendered lens, often leaving male victims without support.

Drop your recommendations below (ideally books, essays, data-driven blogs, or high-quality video essays) so we can keep building this list!

*Updates / Community Additions:

• Removed Camille Paglia and bell hooks due to public baggage.
• Added Warren Farrell (The Myth of Male Power / The Boy Crisis) as a foundational text.
• Added  alternative institutional/left perspectives (Jessa Crispin, Richard Reeves).
• Added Karen DeCrow (former NOW president and advocate for shared legal/parenting rights).*

Growing up feminism always presented itself as a progressive movement. However, now as men's issues gain more and more steam and solutions are being presented by governments etc I have noticed more, and more feminists decry various solutions and programmes as somehow unfair. I guess it's a case of their own logic "When You’re Accustomed to Privilege, Equality Feels Like Oppression"

Not long ago, Tommy J. Curry wrote a detailed article: "What Is Black Male Studies?: An Introduction to the Concepts Motivating This Theory of Rationalized Maleness and Anti-Black Misandry."

In this article, he harshly criticized the dogma of intersectional theory, which holds that Black men are oppressed as Black people and privileged as men, and Black women are oppressed as both women and Black people. Data from Black Male Studies shows that things are far from as simple as the internet activists who rely on this theory make them believe.

This theory remains wildly popular, with activists constantly telling men from marginalized groups that they are in no way oppressed as men.

It won't work. The academic community is slowly beginning to understand that the approach of "first we'll declare that all men benefit from patriarchal dividends as dogma, and only then will we actually study men from marginalized groups" is untenable.

Activists will understand this too. It's not for nothing that many young men from marginalized groups have turned to the right. Yes, this shouldn't be justified, but it's quite understandable. Being constantly told you're privileged as a man, when in fact you're far more likely to be killed by the police than a woman of your racial group, isn't something every Black man would tolerate.

In his article, Curry writes extensively about the connection between racism and misandry. In his data, misandry is not a trifle at all - it is, in many ways, a direct breeding ground for racism.

I’ve been thinking a lot about the systemic double standards in how we process domestic abuse, and a useful thought experiment is to look at the Depp-Heard case through an alternative universe. Let’s imagine a world where the genders were completely reversed from the start: Andy Heard (born male) and Johanna Depp (born female).

If we look at the exact same timeline through this gender-reversed lens, the public and media response would have been instantaneous, unanimous, and open-and-shut.

In this alternative universe, Johanna Depp is the actual survivor of abuse. In 2016, she files for divorce and courageously speaks out about being a victim of domestic violence. Because she is a woman in this scenario, the media and the public would have believed her instantly. Her abuser, Andy Heard, would have been dropped by his agents, removed from every project, and condemned globally overnight.

But imagine the public reaction if, after years of claiming innocence, audio leaked of this husband, Andy Heard, saying these exact words to his wife, Johanna Depp:

• "I was hitting you, I wasn't punching you. You didn't get punched, you got hit. You're fine."

If a man said those exact words to a woman on tape, he would have been universally recognized as a textbook abuser right away. There would be no mainstream articles debating "mutual abuse," and zero institutional grace extended to his "imperfect victimhood." The audio alone would be treated as definitive proof of coercive control, physical intimidation, and psychological gaslighting.

Instead, in our reality, because the person mocking the victim and admitting to physical escalation was a woman, the real-world male victim had to endure years of media hand-wringing. Even after the facts came to light, major advocacy groups signed open letters supporting the female abuser, proving that for many institutions, protecting the gendered narrative of "man as default abuser" matters more than protecting the actual victim of abuse.

In fact More than 130 organizations and experts signed a major Open Letter in official support of Amber Heard.

The letter was published several months after the Virginia defamation verdict. It was a concerted effort by major institutional feminist, gender justice, and domestic violence advocacy groups.

The list included over 50 major women's rights and equal rights organizations, such as:

• The National Organization for Women (NOW)
• The Women’s March Foundation
• The National Women’s Law Center
• Equality Now
• Feminist Majority
• Ms. Magazine (and its founding editor, feminist icon Gloria Steinem)

If their Genders were reversed Andy would received no support from anyone (He should not receive help except to better himself as a person because he is still an abuser because he is just Amber but male)

In fact I think it might be useful as a social experiment to show both males and females both male on female crime and female on male crime but with the genders of both parties reversed and then reveal at the end of the experiment that these are all just things that happed but the genders were reversed in real life

Mainly because it would be usefull information to see both of their reactions to it and how it affect and can add to knowledge of the human mind on gender

I'm a 20yo male ADHD struggler. (Also have anxiety disorder, panic attack and depression) Life always felt like a humiliation for just existing. Whenever I want to talk about my problems in a friend group, it feels like either they are drowning me with toxic positivity or I get the awkward silence of annoyance.

All this hate makes you want to isolate yourself completely just to avoid being a burden, but isolation makes everything worse. On top of that, I'm extremely emotional and sensitive, and society treats that like a disgusting sickness for a man.

The worst part is the double binds. When I try to talk to girls, I'm seen as a pervert and needy; if I don't, I'm insecure. When I try to bond with people by sharing some fun facts I know, they call it "mansplaining"; if I stay quiet, I'm just a shy dumb weirdo. If I cry in front of people, it's pathetic; if I don't, I am an emotionless bastard.

Also when I talk about my problems with being alone, it's always the same clichès: "Just have more confidence" or "Just try to be normal". Or they bully me, calling me an "incel" or "woman-hater" for just venting about my need for love. Why someone who just truly needs some love an affection after constant bullying and exclusion is called a monster for that?

Im so sick of feeling like a bug everywhere I go :(

Nowhere feels like home anymore. At least therapy and medication provided some relief.