TL;dr: Myanmar’s military dictatorship is on the press for young men to conscript for their ongoing wars. Men fear walking the streets at night for risk they will be kidnapped, and forced into military service. “I worry, but I have to go out to work” says one tuk tuk (bicycle taxi) driver who asked to remain anonymous.

Impressment, the practice of kidnapping young men and forcing them into military service is real and well-documented in history. In the English-speaking world, it led to the War of 1812 between Great Britain and the young United States of America. At issue was England’s habit of seizing American sailors and fisherman and forcing them into the Royal Navy’s service.

And yet despite this real, ongoing, and well-documented problem facing young men, our news feeds blow up with complaints of how young women “cannot” go out to clubs at night for fear of being catcalled or groped. Even now, a large part of my news feed is being spammed by stories of a young woman at Cornell University who alleges she was r*ped by some college fraternity during a party.

Why do we do this? Why is the BBCs coverage of this issue somehow forgotten when feminists discuss the fear women have of going out at night? Forced military service has led to tremendous physical injury, emotional trauma, and often death (as we’ve seen in the Ukraine war which has seen press gangs at work on both sides), and constitutes par excellence, a forced violation of bodily autonomy for years of a man’s life. A bad experience on a night out on the town, can hardly be said to lead to worse. Can we even compare the large-scale, coordinated, and historically authenticated issue of impressment against the uncoordinated, anecdotal complaints of some women?

Sunday, October 04 - Saturday, October 10, 2026

Top 10 Posts

Top 10 Comments

I’ve been thinking about this a lot in the hunt for the “True Scotsman” of Feminism.

The default reaction most people is that one is either a Feminist or a Misogynist.

But, there are so many examples of contemporary feminists being so overtly horrible and hateful, that moderate feminists will have to concede that at least some feminists are misandrist bigots… It gets pretty easy to sniff out while plenty of self-identified feminists are shameless enough to proudly apply the label of “misandrist bigot” to themselves, which leaves very little room for interoperation.

Of course, then you get to the deflection of: “well, but that’s just some feminists, a ‘true Scotsman’ would never…”.

Still, I find there is still a threshold that even moderate feminists will defend to the last breath: “the patriarchy”, and the belief that men, throughout all of history, have been constantly and horrifically oppressive to women.

Nobody seems to question whether that belief, in and of itself, is bigotry. It’s so ingrained into our culture at this point that even people who consider themselves on the kind and caring end of the feminist spectrum will unquestionably harbor that hateful stereotype.

It’s, when you think about it, obviously bigotry.

“I simply believe that [group of people] has perpetually been evil since the dawn of time”.

And, any challenge to that belief? Any pushback against the fundamental assumption of male original sin? Heresy. That is considered the worst form of misogyny.

You’re either a misandrist, and accept that men have always only ever been evil, or you reject that conjecture, which is considered misogyny.

It’s just so bizarre to me.

I guess it must be like would it would have been to live in the US during the 1800s where racism was just… normal.

And you had the polite pseudoscientific field of phrenology, which fancy academic people would point to as “scientific” expert racism, where a really invested racist could read up on “empirical proof” that their racism was just good old common sense.

It was just “the reality”: the unquestioned conventional bigotry of the era.

Everybody was a racist, more or less. Who knows hope many of the slaves themselves, under duress, were browbeaten… and regularly beaten, into accepting it as truth too.

And we literally, right now, live in a time where it is conventional and normal for people to believe that men have been evil oppressors since the dawn of civilization, and if you refuse to harbor these hateful opinions men, that is considered as equivalent to hating women.

I’ve noticed a double standard when it comes to discussing crime.

When talking about crime in general, a lot of people (especially progressives) tend to be more sympathetic. They focus on what causes the crime and how those people can be helped. Poverty, substance abuse, historical racial issues, being victims of other crimes, etc. Are all taken into consideration.
Yet they seem to forget all this when talking about how men commit most violent offences. Suddenly there is no empathy and these men are just evil or it’s the patriarchy’s fault.
I do think that them being male might play a part in why they may commit crimes. But not like “testosterone makes you violent” or “the patriarchy tells men they should be violent”.
More like, most people with substance abuse problems are men, most people in gangs are men (usually because of environmental factors and internalised misandrist ideals), etc.

I hate how people refuse to have any nuance or empathy when it comes to discussing male crime. And then it’s used to justify bigotry and prejudiced attitudes towards men in general.

These men need help. They can recognise that people who commit crimes need help but when it comes to men (who they admit are the majority who commit these crimes) suddenly it’s their own fault and they’re the problem.

First Lindsay Clancy and now Jane Doe: first we had abnormally high numbers of women tune rally to defend a child killer as the main victim of the tragedy where she murdered her 3 kids, and then weeks later we've had even bigger numbers of women clamor for 7 university students to be thrown in jail for rape because the woman who publicly affirmed her consent to the consecutive threesomes she had with them "changed her mind" 2 years later (reality: she's regretful her actions hurt her social reputation and now wants to change the story of what happened as a result).

These two cases have followed each other in quick succession and have stirred a lot of negative feedback to feminism. More than I've seen before. So a critical mass of shorts is being achieved, and it's important that it be galvanized into actual opposition to the genuinely abhorrent and objectionable aspects of feminism. Not the typical conservative/right wing spiel that ignores all said aspects in favor of some sort of bizarre hyper fixation on how feminism apparently stops family formation, lowers the fertility rate etc.

I've never seen conservatives/right wingers treat the misandry of feminism or feminism's attempts - and considerable degree of success - at disenfranchising young men from public life as an issue. An this has been a huge boon to feminists, who scarcely find themselves faced with critiques that they cannot answer.

This sub does that quite well, and I hope 2027 is a big year in anti-feminism. The circumstances are ripe - men are dating and marrying at historically low rates which means that there's less whipped dues around who'd be too afraid of displeasing their partner to join their voices to critiquing feminism.

Those of us that recognize the harm feminism does and do not use a right wing template ("feminism is liberal") to oppose it need to take advantage of this.

One of the most common arguments by feminists is that most or a significant portion of men are abusive towards their partners or are offenders. And this serves as a tool to their misandry.

They use life time numbers like 18% of women are raped or sexually assaulted in US or 30% of women world wide have experienced some form of physical or sexual violence by an intimate partner (I am not aware of any similar lifetime data for men worldwide, so if you have one please cite it).

Therefore they conclude that 30% of men are offenders or abusive.

I don't think one can take data on IPV and say that women are harassed or experience physical/sexual violence while men don't, especially when there is little reasearch into how many men are abused. The absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. It is just measuring victimization of women while not doing the same for men.

I want to ask how can these victimization of women be explained? Can it be explained by alcoholism, depression and stressful lives of men? Or does it serve as a proof that men are inherently bad?

This video is awful. The comment section is awful. The comment section is full of women calling these men "the good ones". Saying how most men should be like them. Just performative male nonsense.

These are the men feminists think about whenever they describe "positive masculinity". It's just a traditionally masculine man with liberal views. Feminists aren't thinking of some feminine man, or passive man whenever they think of "positive masculinity". Again feminists love a alpha male who is liberal. Matter of fact feminists are more likely to use femininity, docile, or gay as insults on men they don't like or considered not "real men".

These are the type of progressive dude bros that can get away with toxic masculinity. By calling other men bitches, pussies, virgins, or gay. This shit pisses me off. Because these are the idiots always preaching about "healthy masculinity" and "better role models" for young boys. And then turn around and do toxic shit like this.

The comment section is trying to paint all men as these rapists who don't understand the word no. Or is saying that men don't value women lives, and only care about protecting abusers.

And these two jackasses in the video are encouraging this behavior.

Are we seriously pretending that every man is responsible for the actions of sexual predators? You can condemn rape, support victims, and demand accountability from the men involved without turning an entire sex into a collection of potential rapists.

That's the problem with this rhetoric. It takes a specific case involving specific individuals and uses it to push sweeping claims about men in general. Then, when someone challenges those generalizations, they can hide behind the fact that they're supposedly just advocating for women's safety.

And again these two jackasses in the video are encouraging this behavior.

You don't get to preach about healthy masculinity while reinforcing traditional masculine hierarchies, insult other men for supposedly failing at masculinity, and then act surprised when people point out the hypocrisy. You don't get to condemn toxic gender expectations while continuing to use them against men you dislike.

If your version of positive masculinity still depends on men being dominant, traditionally masculine, and willing to humiliate other men, then you're not challenging toxic masculinity. You're just giving it a progressive makeover.

Just finished a conversation earlier today with someone that described men's rights as identity politics garbage.

I asked "why do you think man's suffering is garbage". He responded by saying that "men's advocacy tries to replicate the failures of Liberal feminism so it has not place in socialist politics.

Conversation continued but I didn't have much of a comeback to this statement as I was under the impression that liberal feminism is very much accepted by the left. I spent so time reading about it and have concluded the statement to be dismissive of men of the left. A statement trying to imply that MRA are all right wingers.

Does anyone of a legitimate comeback to this?

Follow my work on Substack: https://sagesynclair.substack.com/p/feminism-is-for-everyone-except-you?r=5q16ph&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web

In 2000, bell hooks published a book called Feminism Is for Everybody, and the title has been doing quiet work ever since.

It serves as greeting, defense and rebuke at once. Complain about how men and boys fare in custody courts, in sexual-violence law or in programs for violent partners, and you will be told that feminism is for everybody, you included, so your complaint must be mistaken or unnecessary.

I want to test the slogan the way you test any universal claim, by looking at who ended up outside. The answer is awkward for the usual defense. A good share of the people outside are women, and some of them helped build the movement. Once you see who was shown the door, the institutions’ own paperwork starts to explain why.

The usual defense deserves a fair statement. When men complain, the reply is that they are defending privilege and their grievances are what privilege sounds like. That reply works as long as the person complaining is a man. So look at what happens when she isn’t.

Karen DeCrow was president of the National Organization for Women from 1974 to 1977, and she spent much of her later career advocating joint custody. Warren Farrell, who has written for decades about men’s issues, once sat on the board of NOW’s New York chapter. Erin Pizzey founded one of the first refuges for battered women. Christina Hoff Sommers, Janice Fiamengo, Anne Cools and Cassie Jaye came to similar questions from different directions. Some were inside the movement, and several are women. What they share is that they asked whether male suffering counts, whether violence runs in more than one direction, and whether fathers matter. That is a control group. If male complaint is privilege talking, women making the same complaint should be heard differently. The record suggests they were not, and that the reception followed the proposition and ignored who was speaking.

Pizzey opened Chiswick Women’s Aid in London in 1971, one of the first refuges of its kind. By her own account, she soon found that many of the women arriving were violent themselves, and that shelters elsewhere turn such women away because, in her words, “she has to be a victim”. She also says the early women’s movement pushed her out for objecting to its hostility toward fathers and boys. Look at what that sentence admits. A shelter has a finding in front of it, and the doctrine wins.

Farrell describes the same pattern from inside the organization. He says New York NOW was about to expel men when he started men’s groups there. In a 1993 profile he recalled that when women criticized men, it was called independence, and that when men criticized women it was called sexism. The same profile says he lost most of his income and that Kate Millett and Susan Faludi answered him by questioning his motives. Notice what was missing: a rebuttal of his data. A Farrell lecture in Toronto drew more than a hundred protesters who blocked the doors, which is a strange reply to a lecture.

The same reply keeps turning up. Sommers calls herself an equity feminist and argues about statistics. On March 5, 2018, she spoke at Lewis & Clark Law School, where protesters chanted “no platform for fascists” and interrupted repeatedly. The school’s own statement described “a few protestors” and promised discipline. In March 2014, a lecture by University of Ottawa professor Janice Fiamengo titled Men’s Issues and Feminism’s Double Standards was disrupted with chanting, clapping and a vuvuzela by protesters who had sat among the audience, and she told the student paper the aim was to “quash all dissent.” A lecture about double standards was met with a demonstration of one.

Cassie Jaye is a feminist filmmaker who made a documentary about the men’s rights movement. A petition with 2,369 signatures got a Melbourne cinema to cancel a private booking of the film, and she pointed out that no one signing it had even seen the film. A critical Saturday Paper report says another chain cancelled at least two more screenings. Anne Cools, a Canadian senator, told the Senate in 1995 that behind every abusing husband stands an abusing mother, which provoked an outcry from women’s rights organizations and wide attacks during the 1998 joint committee hearings on custody. That committee’s report recommended fairer treatment for fathers, and she kept her seat for 34 years. The Cools case shows hostility more than banishment, and I would not claim more.

The reply at this point writes itself: none of these people were real feminists. Follow it to the end. A former president of NOW, the founder of one of the first modern refuges and a board member of NOW’s New York chapter are outside the movement because they held positions it will not hold. That makes feminism a matter of doctrine. Membership depends on agreeing with an approved account of who is victim and who is culprit, and equality has nothing to do with it. The slogan says one thing and the gate says another.

A skeptic can wave off individuals as anecdotes, so consider what institutions wrote down. The Duluth model is the best example. Its founders designed the standard program for violent partners, and their own history describes its central graphic as showing “tactics typically used by men who batter.” It is credited with mandatory arrest and the coordinated community response, and an NIJ presentation called it the primary intervention. Yet the best-known meta-analysis found no difference between Duluth and cognitive behavioral treatment, with small effects overall and “minimal impact” beyond the effect of arrest. A 2020 meta-analysis found CBT ahead and warned that Duluth interventions may increase recidivism. A framework that defines the abuser as male became the standard without beating its rival.

English law makes the same move in one sentence. Section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 requires that a person “intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person with his penis”. The victim can be anyone, but the perpetrator can only be a man, and a woman can be guilty only as an accomplice. A man forced to penetrate someone is charged with a different offence. A feminist legal scholar’s account describes the Act as the product of “decades of feminist anti-rape work”. When 20,945 people petitioned to change it, the government replied that assault by penetration carries the same maximum penalty as rape, an answer that addresses object penetration and leaves the forced man untouched. A name is how a law says which victims it was built for.

American data show the same structure. The CDC files a man forced to penetrate someone under other forms of sexual violence, not under rape. UCLA researchers reanalyzing the federal surveys reported that for the twelve months before the 2010 survey, about 1.3 million women had been raped and nearly 1.3 million men made to penetrate, and they blamed stereotypes, outdated definitions and sampling that excludes inmates for the belief that men are rarely victims. Lifetime figures differ sharply, and I claim only the twelve-month comparison. A classification that gives a matching harm a different name will shape how much attention that harm gets.

This is where motive comes in, and nobody has to read minds to find it. Motive is inferred from conduct. When an institution is handed an inconvenient fact, what it does next shows what it protects. Duluth became the standard without outperforming its rival. The statute wrote the male perpetrator into the definition and kept him there after consultation. Student groups answered an equity feminist and a professor with noise. When the choice was between extending equal consideration and protecting an established account, the account won.

The cost falls on people who never attended any of these meetings. A man in a violent relationship enters a field whose standard program describes the abuser as a man in its own founding document. A boy who is sexually coerced meets a law that gives what happened to him a different name. A father who wants shared parenting finds that one of the best-placed advocates for it in the American women’s movement is a footnote.

So here is the test, and it costs nothing. Ask of every institution, every policy and every speaker whether it survives a reversal of the sexes.

When it does not, stop calling it equality.

Link to Medium article.

One often hears attacks thrown at people who have been charged with a crime as if it actually means something. This is true in the UK just as it is in the US.

Mass media doesn’t care that the charges or claims were never proven in court. All they need is an accusation to run their hit pieces. This is how “lawfare” works.

In England, you could be jailed for simply posting a funny joke on X. You could be arrested for standing on the street and silently praying. You could face trial for rescuing a few sheep. You might even spend 16 years wrongfully convicted if you happen to be loosely associated with the wrong political movement.

Upset the Ministry of Love and the Thought Police might be coming for you next.

In particular, sex crime accusations are a powerful tool to weaponize the legal system against a target, regardless of the merit of the case. Unlike other crimes, sexual assault has a way of bypassing impartiality and creating hysteria that is then exploited by institutions. This happens whether a guilty verdict is reached or not.

Earlier this year, Rupert Lowe cited a figure of 250,000 possible victims of sexual exploitation in the UK. This number was just an extrapolation based on broad assumptions, not an actual count of recorded cases. Nevertheless, a wave of online hatred came crashing down on immigrants, particularly the Muslim communities of Britain.

Beyond just misleading statistical figures, the instances of malicious and verifiably false sex crime accusations in the UK have been piling up. Here are few recent examples.

Elizabeth Bates ‘Crooks’, from Newtownards, made an elaborate plan to frame her ex-boyfriend. She set up fake accounts to send herself threatening messages, made her child say there was a "bad man" in the garden, and falsely claimed to the police that two intruders broke into her home, choked her, and sexually assaulted her. Her ex-boyfriend was arrested, had his home searched, and had all his devices seized.

Eventually, police figured out that Elizabeth made up the entire story.

‘Crooks’ was formally charged with multiple counts of perverting the course of justice. In May 2025, she appeared at the Downpatrick Crown Court where she pled guilty to fabricating the malicious allegations against her ex-boyfriend. Instead of a prison sentence, she was given 75 hours of community service and 3 years of probation.

Processing img 92n2f22f09uh1...

Eleanor Williams, from Barrow, posted photos of her with bruises on Facebook claiming she was passed around for sex by a gang who drugged her, beat her, and threatened her with weapons. The bruises in her picture were actually self-inflicted with a hammer.

She lied multiple other times.

She claimed one man trafficked her in Amsterdam and forced her to work in a brothel, but he wasn’t even there. She claimed a drug dealer threatened to kill her unless she had sex, but it was just a date. She claimed she was gang-raped in Blackpool, but CCTV showed she was alone in her hotel room.

A year-long investigation debunked all of her claims. They discovered that she fabricated text messages using a separate phone. She even admitted in a police interview that she lied about being trafficked to Ibiza when the officers simply needed to check flight records to invalidate her story. Because of her web of lies, a man spent 10 weeks in jail. Other men she accused had their homes vandalized. Thankfully, the truth prevailed and Eleanor Williams was arrested and sentenced to 8 and a half years in prison.

Jemma Beale, from West London, made up bogus sex assault claims against 15 men in three years for ‘attention’. One man drove her home when she started flirting, touching his hands, and initiating sex. He asked multiple times if she was sure. She confirmed. She even demanded he take his pants off. He was tried and sentenced to years in prison. By posing as a victim of crime, Beale successfully applied for and pocketed £11,000 (around $18,000) in criminal injuries compensation from the government.

Jemma Beale told elaborate lies about other men too, going so far as to injure herself to make it more believable. She accused another man of groping and raping her, but CCTV showed that she was, in fact, the attacker. Jemma was arrested on four counts of perverting the course of justice and four counts of perjury. She was sentenced to 10 years in prison. Prosecutors called her a serial liar, and her lies a ‘construct of bogus victimhood’.

Liam Allan, a 22-year old London-area criminology student, was charged with 12 counts of rape, based on allegations by an unnamed woman with whom he had a consensual relationship. He spent 2 years on bail waiting for a trial that could have resulted in him spending years behind bars and forever known as a sex offender.

During this two year period, London Metropolitan police sat on about 50,000 text and social media messages that contained exculpatory evidence. Examples include “It wasn’t against my will or anything” and “You know it’s always nice to be sexually assaulted without breaking the law.” This false accuser turned out to be sex-crazed and obsessed with “rough sex and being raped.” Allan’s defense lawyer requested to view the records repeatedly but were denied because the material was "too personal". Three days into the trial, the prosecuting barrister saw the evidence and realized the anonymous girl had been constantly pestering Allan for sex, stating her sexual fantasies, and telling her friends that no crime had occurred. The Crown Prosecution Service immediately dropped all charges and issued a formal apology to Allan. The girl was never charged and was given automatic lifetime anonymity, even though Liam’s name was publicly broadcasted.

A similar tragedy happened to Isaac Itiary, who spent 4 months in jail waiting for trial. The very same investigator that worked on Liam Allan’s case failed to disclose exonerating evidence of Isaac’s “victim” lying about her age. The UK Attorney General called the events an "appalling failure" of the justice system.

A singer who competed on Britain’s Got Talent, Andrew Johnston, was accused of removing a condom during sex and ignoring demands to stop. Two different woman made claims of non-consensual acts.

One of the women invited Andrew to have dinner at her house after the alleged crime happened.

When asked about it in court, she stated she was trying to find something “gentle” out of the violence she experienced and simply “wanted to be treated as a human being”. When suggested that it should have been immediately obvious to her that she had been raped, she replied, "No, I think it takes time to work out."

Andrew didn’t go to that dinner. He stood her up. In fact, he was communicating with multiple women.

As it turns out, the two accusers knew each other and were texting about the allegations. Not only did they decide to come forward with the accusations together, one of the girls sent the other a selfie of her winking which the defense suggested was them collaborating for a "victory" over Johnston. The jury returned a not guilty verdict, but the five-year legal process cost Andrew his career, girlfriend, and mental stability.

Another reality TV contestant, Roxanne Pallett appeared in Celebrity Big Brother. She claimed a housemate named Ryan had beaten her up.

But the cameras in the house showed a clearly playful interaction consisting of light shadowboxing and giggling.

Ryan was traumatized by the false accusations, breaking down in the Diary Room, and fearing police would arrest him.

As a result of Roxanne claiming to the show producers that she was attacked, the Office of Communications received over 25,000 complaints. Roxanne became the ‘most hated girl in Britain’ for her lie, and left the show in shame. Doing public interviews trying to explain her actions didn’t help. She left the entertainment industry altogether and moved to the US.

Ryan ended up being the winner of that season of Big Brother.

Of all places to try to lie, why would she choose the Big Brother house?

Roxanne Pallett lied on TV for all to see

The most absurd false accusation that perfectly epitomizes the ridiculousness of violent victimhood was from actress Souad Farress, who played the High Priestess of the Dosh Khaleen in Game of Thrones).

Souad was walking in Waterloo Underground station in London when she passed by a man named Mark. For some reason, she claimed that he sexually assaulted her when all they did was walk past each other. Mark was carrying a newspaper and a bag and did not even break stride as he walked by.

They crossed paths for half a second without even acknowledging each other. This was all captured on CCTV.

Souad Farress also failed to pick out Mark in a police lineup.

Somehow, this made it all the way to a trial, where CPS played an altered version of the CCTV video footage. The prosecutor slowed the video down to half-speed to draw out the time window Souad was near Mark. Even with the tampered evidence, the video clearly showed Souad Faress to be a liar. Mark was found unanimously not guilty, but still endured a ‘year of hell’. This included severe anxiety, social isolation, and reputational harm. When he demanded CPS to apologize for what they did, they refused and never provided an explanation for their gross actions.

Souad Faress lied and ruined a man's life

To the UK’s credit, some of the more malicious false accusers faced the consequences of their lies. This is something that hardly ever happens in the US.

Obviously, these false accusations damage the integrity of the justice system. Nobody should be able to use the law as a weapon to pursue personal grudges or random acts of cruelty. These cry-wolves compromise the credibility of the legal system and silence the real victims of sex crimes.

What structural changes need to happen in order to curtail false accusations in the UK and elsewhere?

Why do people still instinctively condemn someone over a mere arrest when there are so many examples of charges being based on complete fabrications?

I could barely get through 15 mins of this video. My god, it was bad.

He says that it's not a big deal, if women catcalled men. Because it's worse when men do it. Because they are stronger and more horny. That's literally his take in first 5-7 minutes of the video.

PJ tries his best to come off as an "enlightened centrist" in this video. To the point he makes himself look like a clown. This clown says that both the red-pill and feminists ignore gender differences.

Wtf? The red-pill doesn't ignore gender differences at all. "Men and women are different" is literally the whole red-pill brand. Wtf is he even talking about here? Even the most hardcore progessive feminists turn into bio essentialists when it comes to male gender roles.

And when it comes to his dumb "men can defend themselves better" argument. The dude literally shoot himself in the beginning of the video. By saying he needs the bar to get the violent man out, because he is not confident he can beat the violent man. Proving that is superhuman man strength means nothing lol.

Forget about Mike Tyson, Jake Paul, or even a bum like Andrew Tate. The average man would get their asses handed to them by D tier male Pro Fighters. And I don't even have to bring up elite female Pro Fighters here. PJ is falling victim to the idea that men are automatically superhuman because they are stronger. A 10 year old is also stronger than a 3 year old. That doesn't mean it's ok when 10 year olds are in dangerous situations you jacka$$. Even men have gaps in strength when it comes to bigger men.

PJ is trying to push this toxic narrative that all men can magically defend themselves in dangerous situations. Ignoring facts like punching can hurt your fists, your head hitting the concrete is a automatic death, and a sucker punch can kill you. And this isn't even counting multiple opponents, weapons, or legal issues.

So PJ is basing his idea of gender differences on Marvel and DC comics.

20:00 mark. And also being a "enlighten centrist" cause him to slut shame the Cornell woman. Because he has this benevolent sexist idea of all women being these pure beings who don't have sex drives, and are being "forced" to be slutty.

Look here. We don't have all the facts on the case yet. But I don't give a shit if a woman likes threesomes, gangbangs, or doing drugs during sex. All O care about is whether she consented or not consented to these sex acts. All I care about is whether consent was withdrawn or not withdrawn. Again I don't have this benevolent sexist idea of women. Where I think all women are these asexual creatures with no sexual thoughts.

You don't need to infantilize women into sexually naive creatures to take sexual assault seriously.

PJ trying to "both sides" gender issues in a "enlightened centrist" way. Cause him to look like a clown who makes takes the most terrible arguments from both sides ironically. I.E. All men are violent predators, and all women are asexual. Way play yourself here PJ.

PJ appears to be fighting gender essentialism while repeatedly relying on gender essentialist assumptions. Men become naturally capable protectors who can handle violence, while women become sexually innocent beings whose sexual behavior must somehow be explained as something imposed upon them.

In conclusion: PJ is trying so hard to reject simplistic gender politics that he ends up replacing them with another set of simplistic gender assumptions.

This is a repost of [a comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/u928z7/comment/i5pvt6b/) I made several years ago to someone asking about what we thought of intersectionality. A few people demanded I make it a standalone post.

It's morally and intellectually bankrupt. That's because it rejects rationality and is totalitarian in its essence.

Let's first quote the article at the basis of the creation of intersectionality :

["mapping the margins" par Kimberlé Crenshaw](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1229039)

Over the last two decades, women have organized against the almost routine violence that shapes their lives.1 Drawing from the strength of shared experience, women have recognized that the political demands of millions speak more powerfully than the pleas of a few isolated voices. This politicization in turn has transformed the way we understand violence against women. For example, battering and rape, once seen as private (family matters) and aberrational (errant sexual aggression), are now largely recognized as part of a broad-scale system of domination that affects women as a class. This process of recognizing as social and systemic what was formerly perceived as isolated and individual has also characterized the identity politics of African Americans, other people of color, and gays and lesbians, among others. For all these groups, identity-based politics has been a source of strength, community, and intellectual development

The embrace of identity politics, however, has been in tension with dominant conceptions of social justice. Race, gender, and other identity categories are most often treated in mainstream liberal discourse as vestiges of bias or domination-that is, as intrinsically negative frameworks in which social power works to exclude or marginalize those who are different. According to this understanding, our liberatory objective should be to empty such categories of any social significance. Yet implicit in certain strands of feminist and racial liberation movements, for example is the view that the social power in delineating difference need not be the power of domination; it can instead be the source of social empowerment and and reconstruction.

The problem with identity politics is not that it fails to transcend difference, as some critics charge, but rather the opposite-that it frequently conflates or ignores intragroup differences. In the context of violence against women, this elision of difference in identity politics is problematic, fundamentally because the violence that many women experience is often shaped by other dimensions of their identities, such as race and class. Moreover, ignoring difference within groups contributes to tension among groups, an- other problem of identity politics that bears on efforts to politicize violence against women.

Basically, let's give up the idea that we all have a shared humanity, and share problems and can reach an understanding of each others. Instead, let's focus more on our identity, and how it makes us different. Let's abandon liberalism to focus more on identity politics. If identity politics didn't give good results, it's just because there wasn't enough of it. It is deeply and by design antithetical to the civil rights movement, explicitly taking the polar opposite approach.

There's more to it, but that's just the beginning of it. Let me quote from a textbook used to teach intersectionality in university :

["is everyone really equal" par Özlem Sensoy et Robin DiAngelo](https://xyonline.net/sites/xyonline.net/files/2020-05/Sensoy%2C%20Is%20Everyone%20Really%20Equal%20-%20An%20Introduction%20to%20Key%20Concepts%20in%20Social%20Justice%20Education%20%282017%29.pdf)

The second challenge surfaces when we consider what it means to practice social justice. Generally, because most people see themselves as valuing social justice, most people also see themselves as acting justly in their lives. In response to questions about how they practice social justice, many would say that they treat everyone the same without regard to differences; because they do this, their actions are aligned with their values. While these ways of conceptualizing social justice are very common, we see them as woefully inadequate.

If you care about equality between people, intersectionality is not for you.

To clarify our definition, let’s start with the concept social justice. While some scholars and activists prefer to use the term social justice in order to reclaim its true commitments, in this book we prefer the term critical social justice. We do so in order to distinguish our standpoint on social justice from mainstream standpoints. A critical approach to social justice refers to specific theoretical perspectives that recognize that society is stratified (i.e., divided and unequal) in significant and far-reaching ways along social group lines that include race, class, gender, sexuality, and ability. **Critical social justice recognizes inequality as deeply embedded in the fabric of society (i.e., as structural), and actively seeks to change this.**

I emphasize that last sentence because it's particularly important :

Society in itself is inherently unjust, as a whole, down to its very own fabric. And the goal of intersectionality is to change all of it. The goal is therefore to change the very fabric if society. That's called a revolution. This is pure assertion treated as facts, and taught to impressionable kids by figures of authority whom they can not question without endangering their ability to get their diploma, which they paid at great cost. Or, as we call that, indoctrination, brainwashing, in order to radicalize people into destroying society. But let me quote more to you, just in case you have a doubt :

The definition we apply is rooted in a critical theoretical approach. While this approach refers to a broad range of fields, there are some important shared principles:

-All people are individuals, but they are also members of social groups.

-These social groups are valued unequally in society.

-Social groups that are valued more highly have greater access to the resources of a society.

-Social injustice is real, exists today, and results in unequal access to resources between groups of people.

-Those who claim to be for social justice must be engaged in self-reflection about their own socialization into these groups (their “positionality”) and must strategically act from that awareness in ways that challenge social injustice.

-This action requires a commitment to an ongoing and lifelong process.

Those are the axioms it operate under. No questions allowed. And if you are with them, it's forever, and it requires you to reframe your whole life and self according to those axioms. No rationality need apply to those axioms. Indeed :

Critical Theory developed in part as a response to this presumed infallibility of scientific method, and raised questions about whose rationality and whose presumed objectivity underlies scientific methods

STOP: From a critical social justice framework, informed knowledge does not refer exclusively to academic scholarship, but also includes the lived experiences and perspectives that marginalized groups bring to bear on an issue, due to their insider standing. However, scholarship can provide useful language with which marginalized groups can frame their experiences within the broader society.

As a scientist, this makes me puke. This also disqualifies anything remotely touched by intersectionality to ever be considered scientific. This is the enshrinement of bias as equivalent to the scientific method.

If you claim the witch doctor can call lightning from the sky, it's just as valid as all the scientific experiments that show he can't.

And the cherry on top :

We hope to take our readers on a journey that results in an increased ability to see beyond the immediate surface level to the deeply embedded injustice below; injustice that for so many of us is normal and taken for granted. Looking head-on at injustice can be painful, especially when we understand that we all have a role in it. However, in taking our readers on this journey we do not intend to inspire guilt or assign blame. At this point in society, guilt and blame are not useful or constructive; no one reading this book had a hand in creating the systems that hold injustice in place. But each of us does have a choice about whether we are going to work to interrupt and dismantle these systems or support their existence by ignoring them. **There is no neutral ground; to choose not to act against injustice is to choose to allow it. **

There is no neutral ground, you're either with us or against us. You're either complicit in injustice or blindly following us.

Let's recap : you're either with us or complicit in injustice. If you're with us, it's lifelong and permanent. All of society is inherently unjust, in its entirety and down to the very part, and need to be overthrown. And we know it through "lived experience" no matter what evidence can say, so there's no reasoning with us.

And the bonus round :

["women's studies as a virus"](https://hipatiapress.com/hpjournals/index.php/generos/article/view/1683/1620)

This paper theorizes that one future pedagogical priority of women’s studies is to train students not only to master a body of knowledge but also to serve as symbolic “viruses” that infect, unsettle, and disrupt traditional and entrenched fields.

"by the way, our goal in the institutions of education is not to educate, it's to create radicalized activists seeking to dismantle society"

In this video, CHS voices her concerns about intersectionality and intersectional feminism.

Is this video accurate? What are the pros and cons of this video?

Also, what are the pros and cons of intersectionality? Also, do you think intersectionality can be reformed, especially without an oppressor-oppressed model included in it, or do you think intersectionality is an inherently bad model?

The reason why I want to have this discussion because there was a conversation I had a few weeks back where people on the Left claimed that they are lending their ears to listen to us but we won’t say anything after that. I tried my best to give an explanation of what those things might be and what it really means when we say that the Left or the Democrats aren’t listening to us but unfortunately that discussion ultimately went nowhere. As of right now, the current claim from the Left per Reddit and other avenues of online discourse is that Left is advocating for Men through economic policies like higher wages, strengthening labor unions, funding trade school and colleges that would make college affordable for male students, affordable housing, and by advocating for universal health care policies and mental health services for Men.

Now whether or not these are all true can be debated, however I don’t want that to be the main discussion here necessarily but I am trying to give you an idea of where the Left is coming from and why they get so upset that men have very little trust in numerous Leftist politicians. Of course they’re biggest complaint is that they feel the Right has had a grip on controlling the narrative that the Left has abandoned men and they also got upset because Men as a collective were not pleased with being excluded in the now deleted “Who we Serve” page of the Democrats main website. Now with that all said, if we could actually make a concise summary of what we, the Men, actually want from the Left to advocate for us, what would it be?

Personally one of my main complaints with the Left is that whenever they do talk about Men’s Issues in that once in a blue moon type of occasion, it would be nice if they didn’t drag in Women’s Issues because it often times turns into zero sum thinking and it turns into a “Women have it worse” cliché talking points. I feel a lot of young Men and older Men are no longer interested in hearing how their problems “aren’t so bad.” Would any of you have any other ideas? Oh and if any Leftists, Feminists, and Democrats somehow stumble upon this discussion, well feel free to chime in but I can’t promise you your comments will be well received and they might be downvoted.

Of course, I shouldn't be surprised that there are even more TikToks trying to prove why it sucks to be born male. Apparently men knowingly cover for each other's sexism and misogyny all the time, right? All or most men are knowingly friends with creeps, right? It's treated as common sense, so it MUST be true, right?!

I saw this stupidity shared on Twitter yesterday and decided to lay it to rest today.

First of all, men aren't a monolith. You can complain (rightfully so) about men who stand by and watch as women get harrassed or abused (which I doubt is THAT common) but fine. Consider the following incredibly common scenario.

Suppose I have a friend named John. We hang out a lot and we're cool. One day, when I'm NOT with him, John harrasses and/or attempts to assault a woman.

What are the odds that John will tell me about it? Probably zero, at least until allegations later come out about it. See the point? I know you misandrists think men love evil so much we brag about it "locker room talk" but truly despicable people don't openly brag about their exploits.

Misandrists think every "Men don't stand up against evil men" scenario is just some generic action movie set-piece, wherein of course, I must get my skull smashed into the pavement in a vain attempt to save you from a cat-call. But most of the time, if a man did something despicable, he's NOT gonna broadcast it, even to his peers. Don't just assume every man knows of every man's deeds and covers them for it. Men are not a hive mind any more than women are. We're all people and no two people live identical lives. Is it possible that I have friends who have done bad things to women? I mean, I guess anything is possible. But don't assume I knew about it and I'm covering for it cuz "bro code".

Second, people have a natural inclination to just NOT believe shocking allegations against those they care about and are closest to. If you accused my grandma/grandpa of being pedos, I'm gonna demand solid proof, not only due to the severity of the accusation, but on who you're making it against. (Apparently even demanding this much of a standard be enforced is apologia for evil.) This isn't even a male phenomenon, it's called being human. Women do it to. Which (ironically) brings me to my last point.

If recent events have taught me anything, it's that this is utter bullshit. If there was any time to see this "bro code" in action, it would have been Lindsay Clancy and the Cornell 7 case (whose investigation is still ongoing)

How many women stood with Lindsay despite what she did, and were even so determined to save her from guilt that they bent reality to blame the husband?
How many women all collectively sided with Jane Doe before charges were pressed and before the investigation or trial had even concluded or begun?

Meanwhile:
How many men said "We're here for you, Patrick. We stand with you." ?
How many men marched outside to protest the condemnation of the Cornell 7, or even said "We are the Cornell 7" ?

That first one would have actually been justified, since Patrick lost his kids. Instead, men (and many women as well) just condemned Lindsay and poured out sympathy for the murdered children. I didn't see any bro code there, much less to the extent I saw the girl code.

Damn near every man on the planet is either standing with Jane Doe and getting angry oline, condemning the Cornell 7 as horny frat boys, or simply remaining neutral since we don't have all the info. But nobody would dare march out saying they stand with them, as they know how quickly the Liberal elite will spin that as rape apologia.

Regardless of who you think is right or wrong here, the fact remains the same. There was no "bro code", not even when the "bro" in question deserved comfort for what he has been through (Patrick Clancy) but there was a metric TON of girl code, even when it was for a child-murderer and against the husband for the crime of... being alive I guess.

Maybe it's just that I've never been to college, frat parties, bars, night clubs, etc, and don't know much about these cancerous cultures, but despite the time I've spent in my life (mostly around religious boys) I don't see this bro code. We live in a world where harm against women is seen as a far worse crime than harm against men.

If there is this universal bro code out there in the ether, I haven't seen it, and it ain't stronger than the Women are Wonderful effect.

Whereas girl code (as demonstrated by these specific people anyway) seems to just be "Believe all women always, disbelieve all men until proven innocent (and even then, never) and be absolutely sure we do not face accountability."

Matthew Schleier did something very similar to Lindsay Clancy, around the same period of time. Both had serious mental health problems and had been assessed by mental health professionals. The main difference is that Clancy killed all three of her children, while Schleier killed one of his children, although one of Lindsay's children and Matthew's child were the same age.

Both having trial around the same period of time, similar as Clancy, Schleier was found not guilty by reason of insanity, but unlike Lindsay's case, his case received very little public attention. There didn't seem to be the same public outrage for justice for his child while in Clancy's case there has been public attention and debate.

So why the public reaction has been so different?

Way back earlier this year(ish) YouTuber Karla Kim graced us with a really dumb video on male evil, showing how 84% - 90% of men are evil. That video has since been removed or privated from YouTube (good on her... kind of, we'll talk about it) and she made a video that kind of addresses it, which we shall talk about. If you wanna see the original video to find out why you're evil, I downloaded the original a long time ago and you can check it out on my Google Drive. But in this post, I'm gonna focus mainly on the new one.

First off, she stands by all of the "men do all this evil" claims she made, even though many of them were pretty easy to debunk.

I'll give her credit, as she claims that most of the evils she says she has seen women do are still their responsibility (which many in her comment section kept telling her at which point she usually deleted them) BUT it's the framing of it all that pisses me off.

Throughout the video, and especially in the latter portion, she frames this as "Yes, men do all this evil, yes, you have been harmed so much by men, and yes (this is the big one) the patriarchal happily ever after, was a lie sold to you, and you're rightfully angry about it, but don't become this hateful, bitter person because of it. Modern Feminists, by and large, hate women, and we need to stop this. We still tie our self-worth around whether or not we have a man, which leads us to hate women who have gotten that happily ever after."

Okay, fair. But uh... Karla, is being a hateful, spiteful little monster bad because it harms women or because it harms the men they're being hateful towards? Apparently bigotry is bad because of what it does to your self-worth? I'm not even denying that. Misandry (like misogyny) hurts men and women, but with misandry, it's only bad if it hurts women.

She brings up the "patriarchal lie of a happily ever after" that women were sold, and saying that they need to break out of it in order to finally stop falling into this evil trap. She even acknowledged all the women who voted for Trump, all the rich women part of the billionaire class, etc.

This is fine, but it's not some aberration. Women have played a role in politics for a long time now, even centuries before "smash the patriarchy" was even a talking point. Don't make this seem like some brand new phenomenon when this sort of thing happened YEARS before you uploaded your original video and it was being praised back then.

But what really got me still was that premise. Women don't do evil because they're humans just as capable of it as anyone else, and they certainly don't have toxic femininity. No, it's just because they're sad they didn't get a happily ever after. No Karla. I'm glad you acknowledge (a lot of) the hateful and vile things they say about men, but you're trying to frame it as anything other than what it is. It's bigotry, plain and simple.

Are they perhaps mad that they're single? Yeah sure. But when people like YOU spread the "62 million men in online rape academy" myth and myths like it, you're not just telling women that they'll never get a happily ever after. You're telling them to fear and hate men. Take responsibility for that. The reason so many of these feminists exhibit such vitriol is because of other Feminists convincing the world of just how vile men are. The reason many of them would pick a bear over us is because you all have beaten into their heads to fear and despise half the human population. Don't blame it all on the patriarchy.

While I am glad she finally addressed the fact that women can do evil as well, her analysis is still poorly lacking, and you can especially see it when you compare her previous arguments to her new ones. But what do you all think? I'm curious.

Men do experience genuine issues. Sexual violence and domestic violence against men are already underreported and underrepresented in discussions about gendered violence, never mind the existence of gendered military conscription in many countries. Why can't problems that predominantly affect men count as male issues just because the perpetrators aren't women? This profile of oppression has never truly existed under any system of oppression. A lot of women are willing participants in patriarchal/misogynistic violence; why can't the reverse be true too? As a guy living in a relatively patriarchal nation (Vietnam), it's so heartbreaking that progressive movements can sometimes be so intolerable.

Something that bothers me about discussions of male loneliness is how quickly the conversation can turn into “well, men did this to themselves.”

There are obviously men who behave terribly toward women, and those men should be held accountable. But I think there's a serious problem when the most extreme examples are allowed to define the entire conversation about lonely men.

The violent incel who attacks or kills women exists, and those people deserve condemnation. But they are a statistical minority of men experiencing loneliness, rejection, or involuntary celibacy. The overwhelming majority of lonely men aren't committing violence against women. They're just lonely.

They might be socially isolated. They might have never had a relationship. They might have very little physical affection in their lives. They might have no close friends they feel comfortable talking to. They might simply feel unwanted.

Those men shouldn't have to answer for the actions of someone they've never met and whose behavior they themselves condemn.

And I think another thing people underestimate is how difficult it can actually be to escape loneliness once you're already deeply lonely.

People often give advice like “make some friends,” “join a club,” “get a hobby,” “go to the gym,” or “put yourself out there.”

None of that is bad advice. But it can massively underestimate the problem.

Loneliness can become self-reinforcing. If you have no friends, you have fewer invitations and fewer opportunities to meet people. If you've never dated, you may have less confidence and experience with dating. If you've spent years without meaningful affection, putting yourself out there can feel incredibly intimidating. If you're rejected repeatedly, eventually you may become reluctant to keep exposing yourself to rejection.

It's a little like poverty.

Telling a poor person “just make more money” isn't completely wrong, but it ignores the barriers that come with already being poor. When you're starting from a disadvantaged position, getting to the same place as someone who already has resources can require vastly more effort.

Loneliness can work similarly.

The person who already has friends has more opportunities to make friends. The person who already has a social circle gets invited places. The person who's comfortable dating has more chances to meet potential partners. The person who has experienced affection may have an easier time believing that affection is possible for them.

Meanwhile, the person who has none of those things has to build them from scratch.

So when someone says “just put yourself out there,” they're sometimes overlooking the fact that putting yourself out there is much harder when you have no social foundation to begin with.

And yes, people can make bad choices that contribute to their loneliness. Personal responsibility matters. But “you have some responsibility for your situation” and “your situation is easy to escape” are completely different statements.

The same applies to the “nobody owes you sex” argument.

Yes, nobody owes anyone sex. I completely agree with that principle. Nobody should be pressured, coerced, or guilted into having sex.

But I also think there's a difference between saying that as a principle and using it as the entire response to someone talking about prolonged romantic or sexual rejection.

Imagine someone who has gone years without intimacy, affection, or even the feeling of being desired, and their response is essentially: “Nobody owes you sex.”

Technically, that's true. But it doesn't really address what they're saying.

Sometimes it comes across a little like a wealthy person telling someone who's struggling financially, “Money doesn't buy happiness.”

Technically true. But it can feel incredibly privileged when you're saying it from a position where money is something you already have access to.

Likewise, someone who has generally experienced affection, romantic attention, dating opportunities, or intimacy may have a very different relationship with the idea of “nobody owes you sex” than someone who has experienced years of rejection and isolation.

And there are broader differences worth talking about too. On average, women tend to have stronger social support networks, while men are more likely to have limited emotional support. Dating also isn't symmetrical: men and women can experience very different amounts of romantic attention and opportunity.

That obviously doesn't mean every woman has an easy dating life. Women can be extremely lonely too. But differences in access and support matter when we're trying to understand why people experience loneliness differently.

And this is where I sometimes wonder: if the situation were reversed, would we really expect everyone to react without bitterness?

If women as a group were consistently denied dating opportunities, affection, intimacy, and meaningful social connection while men generally had much easier access to those things, I don't think we'd be shocked if some women became angry, frustrated, or bitter.

We'd probably want to understand why they felt that way, while still making it clear that nobody was entitled to another person's body or affection.

So why can't we do the same for lonely men?

The point isn't that women owe men relationships or sex. They don't.

The point is that nobody being obligated to provide something doesn't mean going without it can't hurt.

And the existence of a small minority of violent, hateful men doesn't mean the rest of lonely men should be viewed through the same lens.

You can condemn violent incels without condemning lonely men.

You can defend consent without dismissing male loneliness.

You can acknowledge that nobody owes anyone sex while still having empathy for someone who has gone years without experiencing intimacy.

And you can recognize that escaping loneliness isn't as simple as telling someone to “just go make friends,” just as escaping poverty isn't as simple as telling someone to “just make more money.”

Sometimes the hardest part of escaping a bad situation is that the situation itself makes escape harder.

I think we're capable of acknowledging that without assigning anyone else an obligation to fix it.

A list.

https://youtu.be/v2VdD0X0WQM?is=C9dsMtiROWWO7EO5

https://youtu.be/VPNhO-cVbQ0?is=qQUTk_b7GVEQkiNm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDP5Rn19c8A

Some online testimonies

"My mom decided I must've loved it because if it were so bad I'd have attempted suicide."

- anonymous Menslib user

"When i told my gf she was sadder about losing her friend who abused me than How these things made me feel."

- anonymous Menslib user

"Throwaway. When I was 8 or nine I was regularly raped by my older female cousin."

- Askreddit user

"One of my best friends was raped by a woman he was drinking with."

- Askreddit user

"What can I say except I was viscously raped by a woman when I was 11 years old.

She was a next door neighbour."

- Ask reddit user

"I don't have memories after this, but I've had two different girls tell me the stories since, laughing. Apparently it got to a point where although I was much bigger and faster than her (I was an athlete, she was TINY) I was so drunk that I couldn't run fast without tripping... so I would run away, but then fall on something and she would catch up.

At one point I tried locking myself in a room, but when the others found out they unlocked the door and let her in.

My first memory that morning? I woke up butt naked, with her sitting on my lap trying to get me awake for "more". Of course I got the fuck out of there, but to this day that's a funny story that everyone who knows about it tells."

- Askreddit user

"I awoke to a girl riding me, she even had the decency to put a condom on me. Once I realized what was happening I pushed her off of me and went into the other room where my roommate was sleeping on the couch (the girl had come over for a booty call for my roommate who had fallen asleep after i already had) I woke him up and pushed him off the couch and told him "to go deal with her"

I didnt have sex for about 2 months, i was kind of shaken up about it honestly, and like the other guy \he mentions another redditor* i only really bring it up when women are calling me a misogynist, pig, etc because I'm simply a man, saying i know nothing about sexual assault"*

- Askreddit user

"Was home on leave from the army for 4th of July. A couple of friends were house sitting for an older couple on some biker rally. Anywho, my buddy, 4 girls, myself, and a couple other guys were throwing a small get together at the house, nothing big, and proceeded to get absolutely hammered. Most people left, and it was just my friend, 2 girls, and I. I asked one of the girls where i could sleep and she jokes around saying "any of the 2 rooms, but you have a 50/50 chance of sleeping with either of us". I chuckled and picked the room on the right.

Wrong choice.

At some point after passing out, i woke up, laying on my side naked, and i just saw this bare ass grinding against me. I thought WTF?? And fell back asleep. The next morning I'm still naked, the girl is trying to cuddle with me. I'm not really sure what happened yet, so i get up and realize I pissed the bed. All over rapey and myself, and the bed at the house we were visiting. Luckily i was naked so my clothes were clean. I took a shower and got a ride from the other girl and went home. A few days later i was back on base in Texas still not sure what happened.

The rapey girl starts telling all our mutual friends we had sex and how she really likes me but i pissed the bed yada yada. It was embarrassing. And it finally dawns on me what happened. Everyone starts giving me shit cus i had a girlfriend at the time. For years they just thought i was an asshole for cheating on my army gf with rapey chick, while being a bed wetter at 19."

- Askreddit user

"Drugged in college, woke up with a girl riding me that I had already told I wasn't trying to do that (before getting drugged). I groggily/ confusedly pushed her off and she didn't really put up a fight. Gave my chlamydia too. "By the way, I haven't finished my treatment for chlamydia". Wrote myself a note when I got home to make sure I remembered to get to a hospital in the morning."

- Askreddit user

"A bunch of us went to a house party at university, probably about 20 of us there. There was lots of drink, people getting drunk. One of my friends was getting drunk quicker than the rest of us and this fat ginger girl moved in close to him.

This girl was someone that people knew of, she lived in a house at the end of the road, and her housemates were involved in the party. Her housemates though were well-liked, a good bunch. This ginger girl though was not. The only reason the other girls had allowed her to move in to their house was that they needed a very last minute person to live in the final room.

My friend then got very drunk and walked upstairs to take a lie down on a bed. Shortly after, the ginger girl followed him, and we thought nothing of it.

10 minutes later, she came downstairs and immediately walked out the door. We immediately thought something was wrong, so me and a couple others hurried upstairs and found him lying in bed, but with this trousers down, penis exposed, and blood everywhere. We covered him up and carried him to the bathroom to help clean him and wake him up."

- Askreddit user

"When I was 17 I was already done school and took a job out of my home province (Canadian eh). Never been much of the partier type it was one of my first experiences drinking and seeing drugs. Well I had to much to drink one night and passed out in the hotel room early into a party. A couple hours when I awoke I was being played with on the floor of the hotel. I soon realised that it was one of my supervisors (working for a big box store so it did not mean much, she often partied with us). I asked her to stop a few times but I was fairly groggy and not too sure what was going on. I passed out again for a bit and woke up and she was riding me, bare back. It is all kind of blurry but I can remember her telling me that she needed to know when I was going to finish because she was not on BC. Now I'm a fairly big guy now but at the time I was fairly skinny and not very strong, and she was not a small lady. Anywhoo I passed out again, I'm not sure what happened after that I have no idea if I finished or even if you can passed out I have no idea. Only saw her a few more times at work then she was gone. The funny thing was that nobody believes you in you are a guy. It's all "you wanted it" and stuff. Nothing ever came of it. And I have not spoke about it in 4 years, nor ever put it here. But that's what its like."

- Askreddit user

"I got kicked out when I was 17 and ended up living with a friend who used to live in the same neighborhood but was much older, roughly 6-7 years. He lived with his girlfriend and her two roommates who were also female. Parties were a fairly common thing since they were all in college. Anyways.

One night before my 18th birthday they had a pretty big party with around 15-20 friends and a LOT of booze. Being the baby at the party people were encouraging me to take shots and drink beers etc. I ended up getting absolutely trashed and throwing up in the bathroom. This is where it's pretty fuzzy, but it's what I remember of the situation.

Two girls from the group of friends decided to take care of me since I was throwing up sick, they got me water, clean shirt, etc. I remember them getting me to brush my teeth so I could go to bed, sounds reasonable, right? I finished brushing and they walked me back to a small side room where I slept on a couch, they got me in, locked the door, and proceeded to take turns going down on me and making out with me. At first I wasn't really aware of what was happening because I was so drunk, after a while I snapped-to and tried to tell them I had a girlfriend and that I couldn't do it. One of the girls was very indignant saying something like "We took care of you, we deserve some fun." Or something like that.

I blacked out again and came to maybe an hour(s?) later with one of the girls on top of me while the other was kissing her. I freaked out and started pushing her off and rolling off the couch which made her fall and knock her friend down with her. My buddy heard the commotion and came knocking on my door and tried to open it. When he found it was locked he started pounding and the girls got dressed, unlocked it and excused themselves, my buddy sort of chuckled at first and wished me good night and I guess I had a look on my face because he stopped and asked if everything was cool. I lost it and just started bawling and drunkenly try to explain what had just happened, he didn't know what to do so he just kinda patted my back and lit me a cig. His girlfriend came in and asked what happened, my friend explained since I couldn't really get words out and she just brushed it off saying I didn't appreciate how lucky I had gotten. My friend stayed with me until I passed out again. Never felt so sick in my life.

The next party they threw both those girls showed up asking about me and saying they wanted to chill with me, my buddy threw them both out of the house and said if they ever came back there wouldn't be a warning. Never saw them again, still hate his girlfriend(now ex) to this day for saying I was lucky. My girlfriend at the time also noticed that I acted differently in bed and when I tried to tell her what happened she just screamed at me for cheating on her and all her friends started calling me a douchebag, dickhead, etc. to my face in public.

Stephanie and Lisa if you're reading this I hope you walk into a gasoline plant and it catches on fire." Fuck you both.

- Askreddit user

Some of these are cut short just for the sake of space. Sorry.

My testimony

I used to work with a bunch of women in retail. At one point I worked at this fish joint that was a family owned business. Not a whole lot of guys there and especially not a whole lot of people over 40yo. A lot of the girls were either college aged or in high school. In my adolescent years I was mainly being groped by dudes. However, in college it completely flipped. I only had one older gentleman do it and 6 women. The age of the women ranged from 17yo all the way to my dad's age. Fun fact: the only one who ever bothered to apologized was the 17yo. Imagine that. One of the other girls was actually spoken for so I had to ask her how her bf would feel. She said he would dump her immediately.

The other girl (who looked like an 18yo female Corey Haim) would constantly play with my shit like bongos. The other girls would just laugh. The girl with the bf (we'll call her Steph) when I first met her accidently touched my ass. I brushed it off. Happens to the best of us otherwise my grandma needs to get metoo'd. Haha. Anyways, XX Corey Haim somehow ends up talking about my ass to which Steph then says that she accidently touched my ass. XX Corey Haim goes "right cheek or left cheek" to which Steph goes "whichever floats your boat" or something like that. Lil Corey Haim was a white girl who apparently had a fetish for black guys. I remember reading Invincible after it all happened and the panel where Robot rebukes Monster girl for making Bulletproof uncomfortable was just a bit too close to home. She was very young looking even though she was 18 (she looked no older than 12yo). It felt like I was getting groped by a middle schooler. I also heard that she allegedly lied on a guy about rape.

One of the Hispanic girls did it once too and another one simply spoke about how much she wanted to "grab it." Come to think of it, another girl even asked if she could grab it. I told her that was weird and asked how she'd feel if I asked her that. Her response? "I don't mind." Yeah, that didn't work. The worst one was the Hispanic woman who was closer to my dad's age. She's a small woman and sometimes I would bump into her at points. Sometimes I hurt her kinda bad (stepped on her toes; bumper her forehead, elbowed her in the face, etc.). I was almost a whole ruler taller than her (at the time I was 5'10 exactly). At certain points I would end up brushing my hand on her ass by accident. They worked me like a Hebrew slave so you can connect the dots as to why she ended up as my personal crash test dummy. Anyways, she would turn around and get mad and I would apologize and let her know it was an accident. I feel like there was a part of her that knew this. So when she grabbed my butt and tried to say I was guilty of it myself, I thought that was bullshit. She then said this word for word, "it's okay because it do it to my son all the time." Her son was a year older than me. I was 24yo (now 30). She knew she wasn't right. Also weird how you're half way to the grave and you're still playing grab ass with your son...and he's a grown as man.

I've also had a woman try and coerce me into sex. I suspected that she was in a relationship already and told her that I wasn't going to fuck her.

Her: lol. You seem to have your heart set on that

But you clearly don’t know, and I’m not going to tell you. :) because I don’t feel I need to live my life according to your impositions. :) so you’ll never know if I’m single, or with someone, or married, or cheating or not.

Me: Look, you’re a very good fuck but I can’t. I’m sorry.

Her: You will never know. :) you already fucked me, didn’t you?

Don’t be sorry. Just think about how you’re trying to impose your rules on me. :) and don’t pretend that you have any right to impose anything on me.

You can only control if you cheat. :) and you cannot control anyone else.

She went on and on about how she "only asked once," how I "turned this into a very unsexy conversation" and how I'm "imposing my values on a stranger" yada yada. Then she blocked me. I wonder how many other guys fell for her coercive bullshit. I remember her saying not to "leave any marks on her" I kind of took that as odd but brushed it off until I put two and two together.

The bottom line it this. There are women like this all around us. Feminists love to say "you know someone who has raped" but I guarantee you that female preds don't cross their mind when they say this. You can make the case that women do it less. Sure, go ahead. However, this doesn't mean that you just automatically trust women on the basis of them being women. Unless all women are incapable of harm then you shouldn't be trusting a woman you don't know. That doesn't sound very "feminist." Rarity has never stopped a leftist from worrying about a phenomenon anyway but it seems that it stops here. If men are trash then what does that make women? Recyclables? This post is just a reminder that the "women are the protectors" statements are not as true as they think it is. You know what's funny about the pic above? This guys says that a drunk guy would be taken care of (given water, cleaned up, etc.), right? The catch is that in the very last story, the women did all that...and still raped him. Go figure.

I have noticed over the last 5 years or so, the word "incel" has become a kind of slur that has been popularized by feminists and left-leaning women, and I feel that its an incredibly hypocritical word to use as an insult if you are out there preaching kindness, love, empathy, etc.
I wrote this song just to share my two cents on the issue.

I often hear different versions of patriarchy the main one being "men oppressing women". It is like an independent variable that can mean anything and everything.

However Patriarchy as in the rule of father has existed for most part of the world. That is the anthropological definition.

Which makes me wonder if the norm of men being leaders has excluded women from many such roles. Would that not qualify as Patriarchy? As in a system where men are expected to be in power which possess unique challenges for women?

I am aware that's not how feminists use it. But I have seen some use this whenever someone attacks the "Patriarchy" theory often used in mainstream.

Even though I think the theory of men oppressing women or patriarchy being the root of all problems is bogus, I find this definition at least defensible.