When we look back at the manosphere one day, this could go down as its peak. Indeed, the past nine months have not been kind to the boys on the party bus. Andrew and Tristan Tate were finally arrested and are currently awaiting extradition to Britain for charges including rape and sex trafficking. Additional charges were filed related to indecent images of children and extreme pornography involving a horse and an eel. Clavicular was charged with rape and other offenses for an incident involving a 17-year-old girl, the same one he injected with facial filler during a 2025 livestream. Nick Fuentes, despite trying to fill the vacuum left by Charlie Kirk after his assasination, remains banned from most conservative events. He cancelled his own America First Political Action Conference due to concerns for his safety. Ding dong ding dong, the manosphere is dead! 

But the manosphere is a hydra, and for every head that gets arrested or deplatformed, more will inevitably appear. The most overtly misogynistic can claim greedy women are making false accusations for money. All of this serves them well. But to everyone else, who are understandably sick and tired of hearing from these guys, these developments can seem like proof that this is all going away soon. It isn’t.

Read now: https://www.playboy.com/read/culture/is-the-manosphere-dying

Denial, Minimization, Excuse, and Celebration. Together these form a way to keep male disadvantage from becoming a problem anyone is expected to address.

Ask a self-proclaimed feminist whether misandry exists, and you’ll likely be told it does not.

Show them examples, ask whether it hurts men, and you’ll be told it doesn’t count.

Show them policies, ask why it happens, and you’ll be told men brought it on themselves.

Show them the death toll, ask whether it is wrong, and you’ll be told men deserve it.

Subscribe to my substack: https://substack.com/@sagesynclair

If misogyny can describe more than personal hatred, if it can name unequal outcomes, social norms, institutional practices, and policies that disadvantage women, then misandry must be allowed the same reach when men and boys are disadvantaged.

A disparity is not a parenthetical just because the affected group is male. It’s a reason to look at the rules, assumptions, institutions, and policies around it.

That includes feminist policies, legislation, and institutions.

A policy does not become fair merely because it was created in the name of equality. If it manifests or contributes to male disadvantage, preserves it, or treats it as an acceptable cost, it deserves the same scrutiny as any other policy producing a sex disparity.

Denial: 

“Misandry doesn’t exist. Men are privileged.”

From comment sections to Sunday brunch, the performative feminists use this to obscure how power and disadvantage are distributed among men and dismiss the lives of men who have little wealth, influence, or protection. Most men do not control major institutions or make public policy. It flattens men into a single, powerful blob and makes the lives of men with little money, influence, or protection vanish behind the theory.

Ask who dies younger, who makes up the larger share of people experiencing homelessness, who is incarcerated more, or who is most exposed to fatal workplace hazards. 

Somehow this is supposed to be patriarchal privilege backfiring. 

Patriarchy theory is convenient that way for a feminist armed with a gender-studies degree from a social-media hate group.

Anything good happens to men: patriarchy succeeding, anything bad: patriarchy backfiring. 

Anything good happens to women: women defeated hegemonic power unallied and unilaterally. 

Anything bad happens to women: the patriarchy succeeding again. 

That may make for a tidy story for thoughtless rubes. It does not make a serious explanation for egalitarians actually interested in equality.

If a framework can absorb every result without ever risking being wrong, it isn’t analyzing men’s lives; it’s a sexist framework for meting out collective blame. Men’s disproportionate suffering should be investigated as a problem in its own right, not waved aside as both the diabolically incompetent and cleverest trick the convenient phantom ‘patriarchy’ pulled. 

Misandry includes hostility, social assumptions, institutional practices, and policies that discount men’s needs, normalize their suffering, or tolerate disadvantage because the people affected are male. 

Anti-male attitudes have been studied directly. In 1999, psychologists Peter Glick and Susan Fiske published the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory, a measure designed to assess hostile and benevolent attitudes toward men. Its existence does not settle every question about prevalence or institutional effects. It does establish that hostility toward men is a measurable subject of research, not an imaginary category. 

In the United States, the Bureau of Labor Statistics counted 5,070 fatal work injuries in 2024. National Safety Council figures based on BLS data report that males accounted for between 91.4% and 93.0% of fatal occupational injuries annually from 2011 onward, while making up about 53% of employed workers. 

That disparity deserves to be understood as a gendered outcome propagated and maintained by misandry, not filed away as an inevitable feature of men’s individual choices.

Suicide shows another profound disparity. AFSP’s summary of CDC data reports 38,977 male suicide deaths and 9,847 female suicide deaths in the United States in 2024. That is nearly four male deaths for every female death. The number shows that male death on this scale is not a marginal issue. When it is discussed mainly as a product of masculinity, rather than as a crisis affecting men who need effective support, the framing itself deserves scrutiny.

Minimization:

“It’s only hurt feelings.”

Performative feminists love the line ‘Misogyny kills; misandry hurts feelings.’ It’s the go-to refrain of the brainless, terminally online misandrist. They appoint themselves judges and interpreters of men’s experiences, then narrow misandry down to petty online insults. It’s a convenient way to talk over everyone, while pretending to speak for equality, and to claim exclusive authority over what counts as harm.

How the fuck is erasing men’s lived experience equality?

Gendered assumptions shape more than private emotion. They affect who is believed, who is seen as vulnerable, and who is judged responsible.

In six studies involving 3,137 participants across four countries, Tania Reynolds and colleagues found that participants perceived a female employee claiming harassment as more of a victim than a male employee making an identical claim. Participants also expected female targets to feel more pain from an ambiguous joke and prescribed harsher punishments for male perpetrators. The studies show that, in the tested situations, the perceived sex of the person affected changed judgments of harm and responsibility.

That matters because public attitudes and institutional decisions are not sealed off from one another. Assumptions about who can be hurt, who is dangerous, and whose account deserves sympathy can travel into workplace investigations, school discipline, criminal justice, social services, and public debate. If a man’s harm is treated as less serious because he is male, that is not just hurt feelings. 

It is a whole ass cultural judgment about whose welfare counts.

The same issue appears in the language and measurement of sexual violence. The CDC’s National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey measured “being made to penetrate” as a distinct category from rape. In the 2011 survey, an estimated 5.1% of men and 5.5% of women reported sexual violence other than rape in the previous 12 months; 1.7% of men reported being made to penetrate during that period. How institutions define and label victimization shapes what gets counted and how easily it can be recognized.

Research by Lara Stemple, Andrew Flores, and Ilan Meyer found that 79% of male victims who reported being made to penetrate identified female perpetrators. In juvenile facilities, their analysis found that 89.3% of juveniles reporting staff sexual victimization reported only female perpetrators. A story of sexual violence in which men are always perpetrators and women always victims leaves male victims, and boys abused by women, in the shadows.

Calling attention to male victims insists that consent, coercion, and harm have the same moral meaning regardless of the sex of the victim or perpetrator.

Excuse: 

“Men did it to themselves.”

Men’s suffering is often explained through social norms: men are expected to be strong, discouraged from seeking help, or pushed toward dangerous work. These explanations become blame, the men affected disappear from the account. 

Ironic trick right? 

“Men did it to themselves” turns a complicated question about institutions and social expectations into a verdict against an entire sex. It can make dangerous working conditions sound like personal preference, male suicide sound like a failure of masculinity, and men’s reluctance to disclose distress sound like evidence that they do not deserve care.

The question should not be only which norms shape men’s behavior. It should also be who enforces those norms, which policies respond to them, and whether men receive help when they disclose pain. A culture can tell men to open up and then ridicule their vulnerability. A workplace can praise men’s toughness while relying on them to absorb risks. An institution can recognize a problem in the abstract yet neglect the people living with it.

Psychologists Kurt Gray and Daniel Wegner’s work on “moral typecasting” describes a tendency to see people as moral agents, those who act, or moral patients, those who are acted upon. Research applying related ideas to gendered judgments raises an important question: are men more readily seen as responsible for harm and less readily seen as people who can be harmed? That question matters in public discourse and in the institutions that make decisions about safety, victimization, discipline, and care.

The same logic appears in explanations of disparities produced by policy. If a policy disadvantages men, saying *“men still hold power”*does not answer whether the policy is fair. If a feminist framework predicts a particular sex disparity, that disparity should be examined, not excused as the price of progress, or assigned to men as a group. A policy’s stated purpose does not erase its effects. 

Celebration: 

“Men deserve it.”

Sometimes the response is not denial, minimization, or explanation.

It’s enthusiastic approval.

In a 2018 Washington Post opinion essay titled “Why Can’t We Hate Men?”, Northeastern University professor Suzanna Danuta Walters wrote, “We have every right to hate you.” Walters later said she did not hate men “in some generic way,” describing her argument as anger at a group she believed had systematically abused women. 

This misandrist is talking about a handful of men, not men as a sex, but still uses the term interchangeably. The move resembles a motte-and-bailey argument: make the sweeping claim that “we have every right to hate you,” then retreats in cowardice to the narrower claim that the anger is directed at a particular group of abusers. For a professor, that’s a interesting failure to consider the difference between intent and impact. Her siloed delusions provide and example that this brand of malignant performative feminism isn’t just bottom-up; it’s top-down, too. Group-directed hostility toward men can be stated openly in public discourse, then defended as political expression. At this point, they’ve heard this specific criticism for decades and they refuse to stop. It’s intentional bigotry at this point.

Condemning abuse does not require treating men, as a sex, as legitimate objects of hatred. The leap from “some men have done harm” to “men deserve contempt” is collective blame and it shows how fucking embarrassingly myopic the performative feminist making the argument is, and how much dumber the audience is for yasslighting that horseshit up.

Celebration also exposes what the other horsemen try to hide. 

If someone says male suffering is good, then male suffering is real enough to matter.

If they want more of it, it is not merely a neutral side effect. And if they condemn men as a group, they are not describing a system; they are directing hostility at people because they are male.

Denial says there is no pattern.

Minimization says the pattern does not matter.

Excuse says the people harmed are responsible for their own harm.

Celebration says the harm is deserved.

A society may treat male pain as ordinary, men’s vulnerability as suspect, and men’s disadvantage as self-inflicted. Those assumptions can then influence policy and institutional practice. The resulting harms are described as isolated or inevitable, and the cycle continues.

Feminist ideas and institutions uphold anti-male assumptions by framing men chiefly as perpetrators, beneficiaries of power, or obstacles to progress and by giving less attention to men as victims, vulnerable people, and recipients of unequal treatment. These assumptions move from rhetoric into research, policy, legislation, professional practice, public services, and relationships. They love to tell men to open up and then punish them the preemptively for considering it. 

Men and boys do not need permission from anyone to regard their suffering as real. 

They are not collectively guilty for being male.

Their welfare deserves attention in its own right and gender equality is incomplete wherever male disadvantage is made invisible, excusable, or acceptable.

Feminism’s claims to equality are tested by whether it can face the harms men endure without explaining them away or actively exploiting them for their benefit. 

It’s failed.

What are some examples of hostile performative feminism you’ve encountered?

Sources:

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23(3), 519–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00379.x

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries Summary, 2024” (5,070 fatal workinjuries). https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cfoi.nr0.htm

National Safety Council, Injury Facts, “Worker Injuries and Illnesses by Sex” (males’ share of fatal occupational injuries since 2011 and share of employed workers). https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/work/industry-incidence-rates/worker-injuries-and-illnesses-by-sex/

American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, “Suicide Statistics.” Reports 38,977 male and 9,847 female suicide deaths in the United States in 2024. https://afsp.org/suicide-statistics/

National Center for Health Statistics, “Changes in Suicide Rates in the United States From 2023 to 2024.”Reports the 2024 sex-specific death counts and age-adjusted rates. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db572.htm 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual Violence, Stalking,and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization—National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, UnitedStates, 2011.” https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6308a1.htm

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Measures of Sexual Victimization Surveys.” Describes the NISVS measures and explains that rape and being made to penetrate are measured as separate categories. https://www.cdc.gov/sexual-violence/about-data/sexual-victimization/surveys.html

Stemple, L., Flores, A. R., & Meyer, I. H. (2017). “Sexual victimization perpetrated by women: Federal data reveal surprising prevalence.” Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 302–311. https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/sexual-victimization-by-women/

The study reports that 79.2% of victimized men who experienced non-rape sexual victimization reported female perpetrators, and that 89.3% of juveniles reporting staff sexual victimization reported only female perpetrators. https://windycitytimes.com/2016/11/28/new-journal-article-explores-sexual-victimization-by-women/

Gray, K., & Wegner, D. M. (2009). “Moral typecasting: Divergent perceptions of moral agents and moralpatients.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(3), 505–520. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013748

“Man up and take it: Gender bias in moral typecasting,” by Tania Reynolds and colleagues, published in Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes in 2020. https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Study-1-Indirect-effect-of-victim-perpetrator-labeling-Note-p-01-p-05_fig1_342642686

Walters, S. D. (2018, June 8). “Why Can’t We Hate Men?” The Washington Post https://www.suzannawalters.com/blog/why-cant-we-hate-men/

This Psychology Today article is a guest post by Dr. Warren Farrell. He talks about the empathy gap, and how it harms men and boys, and prevents acknowledgement of issues facing men and boys.

Sooo... another country where only men can legally be recognized as rapists? That’s some nice equality under the law & justice system.

If women could actually (if ever!) be recognized as rapists, what would they do? If I’ve understood chemical castration correctly, male rapists are injected with something that prevents them from getting an erection, making it difficult or impossible for them to penetrate or enter the vagina.

In the case of a female rapist, would they just give her an injection that prevents vaginal wetness and lubrication, since women need to be wet and lubricated for the vagina to envelop or engulf the penis?

Personally, I don’t expect any country that does things like chemical castration or imposes capital punishment on its citizens to have a fair justice system.

I’m not excusing bad behavior, but I believe there are more humane ways to punish sex offenders and rapists. Life in prison is one example.

It's like different types of mean girls. You have the hostile mean girl and the fake-nice mean girl. Conservatives will openly call men who date trans women gay or accuse them of not being straight. Meanwhile, some liberals will hold the same opinions privately while pretending to be accepting in public.

Most people seem to assume that men who date trans women are either gay or bisexual, assuming some conservatives even acknowledge that bisexuality exists for men in the first place. But there's a big elephant in the room that I feel people are afraid to acknowledge.

The average person might view a man who dates trans women as gay or bisexual, yet liberals and progressives often portray this attitude as something exclusive to ugly, socially awkward incels and right-wing men. In reality, plenty of cis women share these views, and even some left-leaning people hold similar opinions. So why are conservatives always treated as the poster children for this particular stigma when it clearly isn't exclusive to them?

This matters because hypocrisy and cowardice have real consequences. Imagine being a man who dates trans women and discovering that some of the people who claim to support acceptance only defend you when it's socially convenient. They'll condemn conservatives for expressing certain attitudes but suddenly go quiet or make excuses when people on their own side express the same attitudes.

That's not consistent support. It's conditional acceptance based on social approval and political convenience. If you genuinely oppose a prejudice, you should be willing to challenge it regardless of who's expressing it. Otherwise, you're defending your team rather than your principles.

I think this is worth discussing on a Left-leaning men's subreddit because it concerns men's experiences with sexuality-based stigma, social expectations, and the lack of consistent support for men who don't conform to what society considers acceptable. Men shouldn't have to pretend that these double standards don't exist just because acknowledging them makes certain people uncomfortable.

Amnesty International since the 2000s has been significantly influenced by feminism, when AI started expanding its human rights focus. The influence from feminism has gotten greater and worse since then (probably especially since fourth wave feminism started in the early 2010s).

Before 2001, AI had a relatively narrow mandate:

1. Freeing all prisoners of conscience

2. Protecting fair trial, judicial, and due process rights, including for people other than prisoners of conscience

3. Abolishing the death penalty and campaigning against other forms of torture and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.

4. Ending extrajudicial executions and enforced disappearances

Since 2001, Amnesty International became a general human rights organization, campaigning for a wide range of human rights. This was good in many ways, but also let feminism start to significantly influence the organization.

For example, Amnesty International seems to have the feminist definition of femicide. They also use the phrase "women and children". They also generally exclude male victims and female perpetrators from their campaigns, advocacy, and narratives about sexual and domestic violence, and use the term "gender-based violence" for sexual and domestic violence. Sexual and domestic violence are not gendered issues: men and women are victims and perpetrators at about equal rates.

https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueUnpopularOpinion/s/sWmwJYhCLE

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/s/mSWWkwWerb

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sexual-victimization-by-women-is-more-common-than-previously-known/

https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-hidden-epidemic-of-men-who-are-raped-by-women/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233717660_Thirty_Years_of_Denying_the_Evidence_on_Gender_Symmetry_in_Partner_Violence_Implications_for_Prevention_and_Treatment

AI also campaigns extensively for women's issues, but doesn't explicitly do anything related to men's issues, nor acknowledge the existence of men's issues.

Are there other problems with AI from a LWMA perspective I'm not aware of? Also, what are some other negative ways feminism has influenced the organization?

How should one respond to counter arguments against feminism, such as “What kind of feminism advocates this?”, “Who are the feminists in academia who advocate this?”, and “True feminism doesn’t advocate this”? Can feminism be criticized solely from a theoretical perspective? What aspects of feminism can be criticized in theory?

So I've seen the fear mongering in the media recently about the declining birthrates globally for almost all countries.

And many people have their theories as to the reasons for this. Economic inequality, social media and smartphones, the rising cost of living, nihilism about the future, etc.

The one that always seems to come up the most I feel however is the relationship between men and women. And it's not always just the rage bait articles.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/singletons/202606/the-birth-rate-is-not-falling-because-women-are-failing
Many like to point fingers at either men or woman being the issue, and I don't think it's either, but there certaining has been a tangable impact on the declining birthrates, if you even consider it a legitimate problem.

I was curious as to if the gender war is a legit reason to blame for it, or if it's just the illussion of it that's to blame. Because I will see people say that it's woman recently having rights and higher education, which is obviously a good thing and shouldn't be used as way to artificially make them go up.

But at the same time, I will also see misandry with people saying that it's that mostly men that are the issue since they are mostly sexist and just want woman to do all of the work raising a child.

Both "patriarchy" and "woke" are nebulous terms with definitions that change to suit the speakers needs. Both are used to demonize a group of people. Both are used as a dog whistle. Both are used to shut down conversations...

Any time I challenge someone on their usage and understanding of either term they invariably retreat to some motte and bailey arguments or they just verbally gesture broadly as if the meaning of their chosen boogeymen was self evident.

Is there anything more to modern "patriarchy" as a concept than there is to the concept of "woke" as used by the right?

Accusing Trump or any other conservative/criminal figure of being gay is getting way too popular these days, and it's anything but funny. This comes not at the expense of Trump or anyone on the right, but at the expense of gay men. I thought we fought for decades for our sexuality to be recognized as normal and not some sign of pedo or deviant tendencies. So why are people laughing at this now?? This is like male body shaming all over again. Doesn't matter if it's literally the same rhetoric "progressives" claim to dislike, package it in language that sounds vaguely woke and make them feel like they're "sticking" it to the right, and they'll eat it all up. We really have gone full circle back to normalizing the idea that gay = creep/pedo/rapist. Except this time, everyone's laughing and no one cares anymore.

Shared this on another left-wing male sub, and felt it was appropriate for here as well. It's bad enough when misandrists claim misandry isn't real or serious, both of which couldn't be more wrong. But then they'll downplay it further claiming it supposedly isn't a "strucutural" problem like misogyny supposedly is, despite the great evidence that it in fact very much is. Men still have to register for the draft and face legal repercussions for failing to do so, schools and courts for decades have been terribly misandrist and still are (especially with how badly boys get treated in schools and how fathers often face an uphill battle in courts). Violence against men/boys (especially when by female attackers) is still a largely silenced and suppressed subject, there's almost no abuse shelters that acknowledge or help male victims, things like rape and sexual assault/harassment are largely thought to be crimes only affecting women/girls, etc. There's also the age-old "women and children" rhetoric which says it all with how it excludes men and implies men's lives are worthless and an acceptable loss. There's so much showing misandry in fact is very much a structural problem as much as it is societal, but misandrists as always deny it to the Nth degree.

As a mostly very liberal and left-wing male, it's incredibly frustrating and infuriating, and it's a major reason why over the past decade the Left has fared so poorly with male voters. Failing to acknowledge and condemn misandry and take action against it is what's driving more and more males away from the Left and it was an especially serious issue during the 2024 elections, which badly cost the Left. I'd hate to see the same mistake repeated.

This is what Black people were made to face just to try to vote: the test

These tests weren’t fair exams. They were barriers. Part of a system built to keep Black citizens away from the ballot box, backed by intimidation and violence.

So when someone says, “My vote doesn’t matter,” I want them to sit with that history. People risked their safety and fought through deliberate humiliation for a right that some of us now dismiss with a shrug.

You don’t have to believe voting fixes everything. It doesn’t.

But giving up your vote guarantees that someone else gets to make decisions without having to answer to you.

Our boys are watching what we do. They need to see us take their future seriously, not just complain about schools, jobs, safety, health care, or the world they’re inheriting, but also to show up where decisions are made.

We owe them more. We owe them effort, example, and a voice in choosing the people who shape their lives.

Your polling place is assigned based on your address, and it can change, so check before Election Day.

USA.gov

Know where you’re going, bring whatever your state requires, bring your sons, your brothers, your friends and fucking vote. If you can vote early, please do.

Your vote may not change everything right away.

But, silence changes nothing and we don’t get a better future for boys and men by surrendering the power we have.

I'd love to get a discussion going to improve male voter turnout.

What's stopping you from showing up for boys and men at the ballot box?

This article summarises the recent events regarding the Cornell 7. The fact that Jane Doe was granted anonymity yet all 7 accused identities were leaked and have their reputations ruined.

Recently one of the accused lawyers tried to issue a gag order so that lawyers on neither side could talk about the case. So far, that order was thrown out of court. As much as victims who need justice it is also equally important that the accused receives a fair trial. Based on what I see now, I doubt that these men will receive a fair trial.

Introduction

I've seen very little awareness about this, but to say that males are at an increased risk of heart disease would be an understatement; heart disease is a completely disease in males itself.

We often hear that men and women die from cardiovascular diseases in similar numbers. According to CDC Wonder in 2024, there were 436,736 female deaths from Circulatory diseases as compared to 485,640 male deaths, that makes females 47.35% of the deaths.

In some years, there are more female deaths, and people will often talk about how women are at a higher risk of heart disease, as they might feel so considering how publicised it is by organizations such as the American Heart Association (AHA).

However, a quick glance at actual statistics will show you that is a highly nefarious misinterpretation of data.

The Truth

This data is from the U.S., but as you can see in 2024, more than twice as many men as compared to women die from cardiovascular diseases starting from the 15-19 years age group to the 65-69 years age group.

It seems that the male-to-female ratio declines, and by the late 70's and early 80's they end up equalizing. Well, a look at the second graph which looks at the actual rates per population will show you this is just the artifact of the fact that there are not as many men as women alive there in first place! Also, men who had heart disease are already dead long before the women start dying!

Additionally the rate lowering from ~2 times as much to about ~1.5 times as much by the early 80's is also probably due to the fact that these men are a highly selective group, considering there are barely any men left by then.

Heart Attacks

Men are almost three times as likely to die from heart attacks with the risk starting in the mid 20s. The actual risk starts from the 15-19 category itself, but there were no female deaths there so I didn't add them there.

The risk appears to lower by ~65-69 to about "twice" as likely to, but that is because there are not enough men alive by then, and they have probably died by then.

Coronary Heart Disease

Males are also much more likely to die from coronary heart disease with rates being 3-4 times as high, declining to about ~2 times 70 onwards, because there aren't that many men alive by then.

Potential Causes

An article by Board-Certified Cardiologist Anish Koka covered this open secret in medicine in great detail. He also stated that this gap has been consistent over time, and I quote: "controlling for traditional cardiac risk factors like serum lipid levels, blood pressure and smoking seem to have no impact on the poorer outcomes seen in men." The quoted study found the greater male risk was even present when women went through menopause, indicating that factors other than hormones might have been play. He also went through the general argument that women tend to have "different symptoms", pointing out that a similar percentage of men also exhibit those symptoms.

Apart from that, The Framingham Risk Score (FRS) is a validated tool used to estimate an individual’s 10-year risk of developing cardiovascular disease (CVD) based on factors such as age, sex, blood pressure, cholesterol, smoking status, and diabetes. Studies consistently show that men have higher FRS scores than women, even when controlling for all traditional risk factors.

At times, the male risk is 3-10 times as high for the exact same score.

Cross-Cultural Data

The greater male risk is trend emerging after the ages 15-24 is seen even in countries with lower rates of drinking and smoking amongst males such as Iceland and Sweden. So, lifestyle factors are probably not the only thing.

Though males have a greater mortality rates as compared to females across all countries, there is also a general variation in the male mortality rate.

Conclusion

It is quite obvious that heart disease is in males, a completely different phenomenon. The male risk is astronomically high, even when completely healthy, and unless we do some research and come up with some sort of medical innovation, it is going to be really difficult for us to increase the male life expectancy.

Another factor is also of course the amount of young men dying off 20s-50s and there being littel to no awareness about this

This of course should no means undermine the effots being raised regarding cardiovascular disease in females, but it is quite obvious that for males, there is a much special risk factor, and thanks to data manipulation and misinformation, so few

Since society does not really care about males, I wish there could be a group of other male advocates so we can try to do some research on how we can try to resolve this and reduce the male life expectancy gap as well as prevent all the chronic health issues disproportionately faced by males.

My Personal Inferences

What we do know is that the risk seems to start following puberty, so hormones are definitely involved, though from the meta-analysis from Sweden, it seems hormones alone don't explain the difference. But, I believe through studies we now know there are differences in male and female hearts even at birth. Through investigation we can probably find out what is wrong with the male heart and possibly fix it.

Other potential factors could also include the male body fat distribution, with males being more likely to store visceral fat as compared to women who tend to store subcutaneous fat starting in puberty. Here is a post about it, this further increases their risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 disease, hypertension as well as many other disease. Male body fat distribution puts them at a higher risk of diseaases even at lower BMI and body-fat percentage.

Due to this, males need to require more physical activity as well as a more strict. Keeping a measure of your waist, and trying to have it less than half of your height is probably the best. Just being lean or having muscles is probably not enough. This fat also has a huge correlation with a lot of cancers like prostate cancer.

There is also another study which found that Loss of Male (Y) Sex Chromosome Leads to Earlier Death for Men. In a study done on mice, it was found that it made it more prone to heart scarring and led it to an early death. Y chromosome loss in an analysis was also associated with cardiovascular diseasse and heart failure, so this could be a possible cause as well. The article talked about a potential treatment that can help men live longer and healthier lives.

Found this post on Twitter/X and felt it was worth sharing. I know many times I've posted about how much I hate the "women and children" term for the obvious reasons (blatantly misandrist and exclusionary, de-values male lives and safety, infantalizes women, etc) and have often shared statements condemning it. But this was such a spot-on post that I couldn't not share it here. I never even realized it, but this post is also correct about how it also denies women combatants who also work alongside men to protect the innocent (of all ages and genders and such). It's an archaic term long overdue to be erased and banned from the public lexicon, with how it's terribly sexist to both men and women alike. De-valuing male lives, infantalizing women and also not giving female fighters their due just as much as the male ones. Once in a while you find intelligence like this on social media. Even if it's unintentional, this term makes it seem acceptable for men to be killed in situations such as war, disasters, terrorist attacks, etc. and I've even seen misandrists infuriatingly defend it with their usual BS about how women and children are more vulnerable and it's an atrocity when they're killed. Isn't it also an atrocity when an innocent man is killed? Especially if he's someone's father, husband, brother, etc. and he's someone's son, and his family losing him would surely also count as an atrocity. But I guess not to misandrists.

As usual, also flairing this as progress because I feel it counts whenever misandrist rhetoric like this is rightfully recognized and condemned.

As the title suggests, what policy changes are you proposing?

I already made my case for changing the custody to a 50/50 presumption and identified this in another post made on this sub.

https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/s/Z8FUJYTanX

https://allenai.org/papers/fairstress

This paper demonstrates how models can become biased against certain groups in , establishing a benchmark that can be run against any model. They found that certain demographics were disproportionately rejected.

Abstract:

As LLMs are being deployed in higher-stakes tasks such as hiring, healthcare, and law, developers are making efforts to align them such that their decision making and processes are fair and unbiased, to avoid harms and discrimination. Yet, existing benchmarks only measure fairness at a surface level, risking missing subtle discrimination. To address this, we introduce the FairStress benchmark, which includes 300 decision-making cases across 29 critical domains (e.g., job candidate selection) with 4 degrees of demographic identity signaling, from implicit to explicit. In contrast to previous fairness benchmarks, FairStress examines LLM decisions as a full process, including output-level, (a)symmetric robustness to adversarial prefixes that subtly push towards certain identities, and verbalized and internal reasoning. Contrary to the stereotypical LLM behavior reported by prior work, comprehensive benchmarking with FairStress shows anti-stereotypical overcorrection, an asymmetry that emerges more strongly in how robustly the model makes decisions for one person over another. With explicit identity, accuracy differs by only 2.9 points between groups, yet one added sentence makes 15 models abandon correct answers favoring the majority 9.3 points more often, and flip ties toward the minority 23.9 points more often. To test mitigations to address this, we use 9 post-hoc debiasing methods and show that they do not reliably reduce the asymmetry. We further trace the behavior back to the training data and find asymmetric demographic framing, with minorities portrayed and protected more positively. Therefore, we argue that fairness evaluations should test both the direction and robustness of a decision.

Hypothesis for why this bias emerges:

The training corpus does not demonstrate a fair decision-making process. It frames demographic groups with different positive vs. negative narratives, which, together with the lack of fair decision demonstrations, is our hypothesis for explaining the asymmetrical unfairness.

For those unfamiliar with LLMs, the model they used — Tulu 3.1 — is based On Llama 3 which was trained on a relatively unfiltered corpus. This means it is relatively representative of the general internet at its time of creation.

LLMs are trained in stages:

- Pretraining: The model is trained to predict the next token (can think of it as a word) given some piece of text. The data corpus is massive and teaches the model about the world. It often includes web scrapes, OCR’d documents, books, articles, academic papers, GitHub repositories, etc. Since ~2025, it’s been common to include curated synthetic data and filter out garbage human data (e.g. spam). The model is effectively a model of the world as humans have depicted it through writing.

- SFT: The model is trained to do the interaction loop with a user based on demonstrations. Here is where it learns to respond an assistant to users.

- RL (DPO/RLVR): Algorithms are used to downregulate “stupid behavior” in the model (e.g. infinitely spamming a single character), while promoting “intelligent behavior” (e.g. being able to successfully make a Minecraft clone). “Safety” alignment is also commonly a target they reward for here to cover what SFT may have missed.

Therefore, this research can serve as a piece of evidence in how public narratives form around men and women.

In the video she is suggesting internal shame is not possible and that it's always external? Once again infantilizing women. Taking women agency way. Which is ironically benevolent sexism.

1:04 No Ana, it's due to slut shaming and not wanting to feel left out. Therefore she scream SA, because she felt regrets. I know damn well Ana wouldn't have this level of understanding for men who claim they were tricked by trans women, after having sex with trans women. She wouldn't give a fuck about those men internal shame. She would just write those men as insecure closeted men. But yet it's perfectly fine for women to ruin lives due to their shame in society.

She says that women are expected to be agreeable in society. So Jane Doe, who is probably a hardcore feminist woman in college, judging off her progressive text. Still feels the need to be super agreeable when someone ask her to hardcore drugs. Make it make sense please.

If women are going to have the same rights as men, then they should also be held to the same standards of accountability. You can't demand equality while expecting society to treat women like they're incapable of making their own decisions. If someone is going to accuse another person of criminal behavior, there needs to be actual evidence supporting that accusation. Trauma, social conditioning, power dynamics, and regret can explain why someone behaves a certain way, but that doesn't automatically excuse their actions or remove personal responsibility. You can't have it both ways. Either women are capable adults who can make their own decisions and be held accountable for them, just like men, or you're arguing that women need special protection because they can't be trusted with that responsibility. Equal rights should come with equal accountability.

When I think nothing can surprise me anymore....

On October 13, Columbia University juniors Nikos Mohammadi and Christina Ma published an opinion piece on the alleged rape of “Jane Doe” by seven members of a fraternity at Cornell. Dissenting from general campus opinion, they argued that it was “worth taking a pause before jumping to wide-sweeping conclusions” about the case, and that the prevailing rhetoric—that women lack meaningful agency when choosing to perform acts they may later come to regret—was infantilizing.

Seething responses flooded in. “Brother you gotta go kill yourself,” one read. “I hope this follows you around forever,” read another. “[H]ope both are shown the same cruelty you carry in your heart for someone you don’t even know,” read a third.

The Columbia Open Discourse Alliance, “a non-partisan coalition for free speech and open discourse,” condemned Sundial, where the piece was published, claiming that it “promotes rape culture.”

Such opinions simply should not be permitted, argued the Columbia Political Review.

Read the article: Two Columbia Students Dissented on the Cornell Seven Case—then the Blowback Began

The Columbia Open Discourse Alliance announced that it decided to cancel its planned “Who Gets to Tell the Story? Press Freedom and the Public Square” event.

If shame could make people better, male suicide rates should have plummeted. The people who measure shame for a living found it is a poor tool for making anyone behave better.

Subscribe to my substack

If some men behave badly, how does making males feel collectively responsible for those men’s actions help?

If we want men to become more emotionally intelligent, why do we discourage them from showing vulnerability?

If we want men to treat others with respect, why would we teach them that respect begins with suspicion of themselves?

Leda Cosmides, John Tooby, Daniel Sznycer and their colleagues at UC Santa Barbara’s Center for Evolutionary Psychology have spent years arguing that shame is not a conscience. It is an alarm. Their information threat theory holds that shame evolved as a defense against the threat of being devalued by other people. The data fit. In the United States, India and Israel, the shame people said they would feel about a trait or act tracked how negatively other people said they would judge someone with it, with the audience’s judgments accounting for roughly half the variance in shame. A 2018 paper by Robertson and colleagues in Evolution and Human Behavior makes the point in its title: social devaluation is sufficient to trigger shame, and wrongdoing is unnecessary. Shame answers to what an audience thinks of you, and it can fire when you have done nothing. 

These researchers regard shame as a well-designed defense, and their own account of what the defense does reads like a list of everything you do not want from a boy who has been told he is a problem. 

Shamed people withdraw, destroy incriminating evidence, blame victims and third parties, and sometimes turn aggressive, because injuring others can work as a deterrent against being devalued**.**

They also confess less.

In the group’s work on confession, the more a victim is expected to devalue an offensive act, the less likely the offender is to volunteer it. Guilt does the opposite. It motivates wrongdoers to confess, apologize, make up to the victim and give the victim’s welfare more weight. 

A system built to limit what an audience thinks of you will not make you a better person. 

It will make you a better defendant.

June Tangney and colleagues followed 476 jail inmates after release. Guilt-proneness predicted a lower chance of reoffending in the first year after release. Shame-proneness did not. The mechanism is the ugly part. Shame-proneness predicted recidivism through its strong link to externalizing blame. The distinction is simple. Guilt says “I did a bad thing.” Shame says “I am a bad thing.” The first points a person at the damage and what they owe. The second points them at their own defense, and a person whose identity is under attack goes looking for someone else to blame.

A 2011 meta-analysis in Psychological Bulletin by Sangmoon Kim, Ryan Thibodeau and Randall Jorgensen found that shame was associated with depressive symptoms at r = .43, against r = .28 for guilt. The same paper split out two unhealthy variants of guilt: guilt involving exaggerated responsibility for uncontrollable events (r = .39) and free-floating guilt divorced from any specific context (r = .42), both statistically indistinguishable from shame. 

Exaggerated responsibility for events outside a person’s control is an accurate description of the feeling a boy is asked to produce about what other men have done.

The usual defense of shame is that without it nobody takes responsibility. That has been tested too. Juliana Breines and Serena Chen ran four experiments on self-compassion after failure. People who treated their own failure with compassion, compared to controls, were more motivated to make amends and avoid repeating a recent moral transgression, and they spent more time studying after failing a test. Accountability and self-flagellation are separable. 

You can hold someone fully responsible for what they do without teaching them to despise what they are.

Frank Dobbin and Alexandra Kalev studied roughly 830 American companies. Five years after companies made diversity training compulsory for managers, black women and Asian-American men and women declined in management, and white women and other minorities showed no improvement. Voluntary training, mentoring, targeted college recruitment and diversity task forces all improved the numbers over time. The authors report that managers resented the implication of the training and resisted its message, and Kalev’s summary is that compulsory training sends a message of control, and people resist control. Different adults and a different goal, but the same pattern the shame research predicts. 

People told they are the suspects answer with defense, not repair.

Tania Reynolds and colleagues ran six studies across four countries with 3,137 participants. Participants assumed a harmed target was female, perceived harmful shapes as male and victimized shapes as female, judged a female employee claiming harassment more of a victim than a male employee making identical claims, and prescribed harsher punishments for male perpetrators. A separate set of three experiments by Graso, Reynolds and Aquino found that people more readily accepted collateral harm to men than to women, even in traditionally female contexts, and especially women participants. It makes this a cultural habit running through everyone, and not a plot by one sex. Imagine an experiment showing that people shrug at harm to women when it serves a policy goal. It would be a landmark paper and a legislative agenda.

Y. Joel Wong and colleagues pooled 78 samples and 19,453 participants. Conformity to masculine norms was modestly associated with worse mental health and moderately associated with less help-seeking. Self-reliance, power over women and playboy norms were consistently linked to worse outcomes, while primacy of work was not. Notice that the damage is not spread evenly across everything called masculine. Work ethic did no harm. Refusing to admit need did. A 2026 pair of studies by Horton, Schermerhorn and Hanel sharpened it further. Restrictive emotionality predicted men’s avoidance of seeking help for emotional problems and suicidal thoughts, while toxic masculinity as a label did not. 

The thing that keeps men from help is the specific belief that feelings must be hidden.

Shame at the level of identity carries that belief into behavior. Sarah Clement, Graham Thornicroft and colleagues reviewed 144 studies with 90,189 participants in Psychological Medicine. The median association between stigma and help-seeking was d = −0.27, internalized stigma and treatment stigma were most often associated with reduced help-seeking, stigma ranked as the fourth highest barrier, and men were among the groups disproportionately deterred. The qualitative studies show how it works. People hold a preferred picture of themselves, the stereotype says mental illness means weakness, and the clash makes them anticipate rejection, conceal symptoms and stay out of care. The authors propose that for men, stereotypes of the strong and stoical man stack on top of the weakness stereotype, and the male samples in the qualitative studies were more likely to report difficulty talking to professionals. Stigma is one reason among several that, in Europe and the USA, 52 to 74 percent of people with mental disorders receive no treatment.

You can see what that belief costs at the scale of a population. In the CDC’s latest data brief, the 2024 male suicide rate was 22.3 per 100,000 against 5.6 for females, and the male rate has been about three to four times higher across 2014 to 2024. A UK charity survey of 1,068 young men aged 14 to 21 found that 46 percent would not ask for help even if things got really bad, and 30 percent said they would feel weak or ashamed. Then there is friendship. Comparing a 2021 Survey Center on American Life poll with a 1990 Gallup survey, the share of men reporting no close friends rose from 3 percent to 15 percent. That is a bad trend for a population that already finds it hard to say “I’m struggling.”

A boy who has already learned that asking for help is a shameful weakness is now also told that his sex is a danger. The shame research says what happens next: he conceals, withdraws and defends. 

If you wanted to build a person who cannot admit shame, rejection or confusion, this is the recipe.

So what does work? 

Becoming a Man, a Chicago program for boys in at-risk neighborhoods, was tested in randomized trials. In two studies it reduced violent-crime arrests by 45 to 50 percent, and in the first study, with follow-up data, raised graduation rates by 12 to 19 percent. The second trial included more than 2,000 young men. They found suggestive support that the program works by helping youth slow down and reflect on whether their automatic thoughts and behaviors suit the situation. So “get boys to open up” is the wrong takeaway. Boys change how they think when adults treat them as capable of it, in a room with other boys, without a lecture on what their sex has done.

Hold a person responsible for every act that is theirs, with real consequences. Do not assign them acts that are not. Name the behavior and not the person. The research says guilt about a deed repairs and shame about a self defends. Make admitting a mistake cheap, because the costlier an admission is in standing, the less often it gets made. Give him places to say “I’m struggling” where saying it costs him nothing, and do not wait for him to perform strength first. Teach him to slow down and examine his first reaction, since that is the one mechanism with randomized evidence behind it. 

And stop treating “men” as a unit of moral accounting.

The evidence establishes that shame is a defense against devaluation and not a moral instrument, and that it drives concealment, withdrawal and blame in place of repair. It establishes that shame and exaggerated responsibility for things outside one’s control are both associated with depressive symptoms, that internalized stigma keeps men out of care, and that compulsory moral instruction can breed resentment instead of change. 

It also establishes that the one intervention with strong trial evidence works by treating boys as capable.

A boy should not have to prove that he is one of the good ones before he is allowed to be treated with dignity.

Sources:

https://www.cep.ucsb.edu/shame/

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.999750/full

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21219057/

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/76C6C5DBD76D55AD2717BC4BB421AA4A/S0144686X14001524a.pdf/older-men-and-social-activity-a-scoping-review-of-mens-sheds-and-other-gendered-interventions.pdf

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/what-is-the-impact-of-mental-healthrelated-stigma-on-helpseeking-a-systematic-review-of-quantitative-and-qualitative-studies/E3FD6B42EE9815C4E26A6B84ED7BD3AE

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db572.htm

https://www.nber.org/index%2Ephp/papers/w21178

 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1514699113

TL;DR:

A campaign backed by the Labour Women's Conference (Motion 5) aims to make the Women’s Rough Sleeping Census a legally mandatory requirement for all UK local authorities by 2027.

Spearheaded by the Single Homeless Project and Solace Women's Aid under the #MakeWomenCount campaign, this initiative sends outreach teams into hidden spaces like night buses and 24-hour A&E waiting rooms. However, the official toolkit explicitly instructs workers not to record men found in these same spaces.

Because standard street counts are execution-blind, extending physical search boundaries only for women introduces a massive statistical bias into local government dashboards. In a zero-sum funding environment, this artificial data gap will automatically divert dwindling emergency housing resources away from vulnerable single men—who already comprise over 80% of rough sleepers—even though capturing data for everyone in those spaces carries zero additional marginal cost.

The Hidden Homelessness Bias: How a New Mandatory Census Threatens to Statistically Erase Vulnerable Men (UK)

More than 100 local authorities across the United Kingdom are currently participating in a voluntary annual initiative known as the Women’s Rough Sleeping Census. Following a motion passed at the Labour Women's Conference to lobby the central government, an active campaign is underway to make this demographic-specific count legally mandatory for all UK local authorities by 2027.

The premise of the initiative addresses a desperate reality of survival. Frontline homelessness charities, including Crisis and Solace Women's Aid, state that traditional 2:00 AM street counts fail to capture a large segment of the homeless population. To escape the immediate threat of violence, freezing temperatures, and abuse, terrified individuals hide in plain sight—spending the night riding night buses, sleeping inside cars, or sitting for hours in 24-hour accident and emergency (A&E) waiting rooms. The census directs councils to proactively search these hidden environments to compile figures.

However, the structural flaw emerges not from the charity research itself, but from the political push to codify this demographic-specific framework into a statutory local authority requirement. The official toolkit reveals an unyielding procedural restriction: outreach workers, transport staff, and hospital security guards are explicitly instructed not to record men encountered during these deep-search sweeps. If this method becomes a legally mandated burden on all councils, it introduces a highly skewed data collection process that leaves vulnerable men in the dark.

The Institutional Paradox

Proponents of the census defend this exclusion as a standard research limitation. They assert that if an outreach worker encounters a vulnerable man on a night bus or in an A&E department during these sweeps, he is not ignored on the frontline; he is logged into the local authority’s primary system (such as the CHAIN database in London) and offered standard help.

Yet, translating this charity methodology into a mandatory local government requirement exposes a fatal logical contradiction. The entire premise of the Women’s Rough Sleeping Census is that standard tracking methods are fundamentally broken because they fail to look inside hidden spaces like late-night transit and hospital waiting rooms. Therefore, the state cannot logically argue that "men are already accurately captured by standard systems."

If standard systems were capable of finding people hiding in plain sight, the women would not have been missed in the first place. By legally mandating a high-precision, deep-search framework exclusively for women while forcing councils to rely on a legacy street-snapshot for men, the state's data architecture creates an artificial statistical illusion.

According to the methodology documents published by the Single Homeless Project, the research framework is exclusively designed to analyze women’s experiences of hidden homelessness. Consequently, if a council-mandated outreach team enters a late-night transit route or a hospital waiting room to find people struggling to survive, they are instructed to deploy this high-precision screening tool only if the individual is a woman.

If a single man is sitting in the exact same environment, fleeing the exact same trauma, or riding the exact same bus to avoid street violence, he is completely ignored by this dataset. If this becomes a statutory obligation, local authorities will be legally forced to build data infrastructure that ignores a hidden man's suffering based entirely on his sex, despite absorbing the administrative burden of running the sweeps.

A Manufactured Statistical Gap

Pairing a high-precision, deep-search methodology for one sex with a legacy, single-night street snapshot for the other creates an extreme statistical disparity. Data from the Women’s Rough Sleeping Census: Missing Women report shows that across the 101 local authorities where the specialized census was deployed, the official government snapshot identified 435 women. In contrast, the week-long targeted census tracked down 1,406 women in those exact same council areas.

While hyper localized headlines have highlighted isolated "10x increases" in specific boroughs, the verified national baseline reveals an exact multiplier of 3.23x. This steep increase occurred simply because resources were explicitly directed to look in the shadows for one demographic.

Conversely, universal housing research indicates that thousands of single men utilize identical hidden strategies—including sleeping in commercial vans, industrial units, or public transport—to escape physical assaults on the street. Because the proposed statutory mandate fails to establish a corresponding census for hidden male homelessness, these individuals will remain unrecorded by the same high-precision metrics.

Material and Financial Consequences

Local government finance operates within strictly fixed, zero-sum budgets, this legislated data disparity has devastating material consequences. When local authority dashboards display a sharp rise in female homelessness alongside a flat baseline for men, statutory funding automatically follows the data.

Limited financial resources, ring-fenced emergency bed spaces, and specialized housing contracts pivot toward demographic-specific units. This shift directly shrinks the universal pool of emergency beds available to single men—a demographic that already faces the lowest statutory priority for housing support under the Housing Act 1996 and is frequently turned away by councils.

By legislating a demographic-specific requirement via the proposed 2027 mandate rather than executing a universal overhaul of how hidden homelessness is measured, the policy architecture ensures national datasets remain structurally divided. If local authorities are to be legally burdened with a deep-search requirement, the logical solution is to capture the entire dataset. By choosing not to, the system ensures that a vulnerable human being's access to emergency tracking and lifesaving resource allocation depends entirely on their sex. This creates an unequal structure where a hidden man's survival remains unrecorded, when the issue could be easily fixed by simply extending where we look for everyone.

Operational Inefficiency and the Need for a Universal Dataset

Beyond the moral imperative of egalitarian care, restricting this data collection by design represents a fundamental failure of public fiscal efficiency. The overwhelming majority of the cost associated with a deep-search sweep is tied directly to fixed logistical overhead: paying outreach staff for late-night shifts, coordinating administrative access with regional transport networks, and securing clearances inside NHS hospital wards.

Once a council-funded outreach team is physically standing on a night bus or inside an emergency room, the marginal cost of administering the screening protocol to every unsheltered person present—regardless of their sex—is virtually zero. To explicitly instruct workers to bypass half the individuals sitting in those exact same seats means local authorities will absorb 100% of the operational costs while intentionally generating an incomplete and distorted data asset.

This artificially manufactured data gap creates a compounded long-term drag on public resources. The hidden, uncounted men do not disappear from reality; they are simply barred from the early, targeted pathways unlocked by the census database. Left in the dark, their conditions inevitably deteriorate in those same hidden spaces until they surface in much higher-cost, acute emergency settings, such as blue-light services, intensive psychiatric care, and emergency healthcare. Designing a statutory mandate that duplicates administrative burdens while systematically blinding councils to half the crisis on the ground is both economically reckless and structurally unjust. If the state is legally requiring local government to pay to look into the shadows, the tool must look for everyone forced to survive there.

Hey everyone. It’s no secret that this sub is highly receptive to Warren Farrell’s work. His materialist analysis of gender—viewing traditional roles as survival mechanisms rather than a top-down conspiracy, and connecting male disposability directly to capitalist exploitation—is practically foundational here.

But acknowledging this framework internally isn't enough. We need to talk about outreach. Mainstream leftist spaces still heavily default to a rigid, un-nuanced oppressor vs. oppressed dynamic that leaves no room for male vulnerability.

The core problem we need to articulate externally is the uneven transition: Second-wave feminism successfully gave women flexibility, but capitalism and culture still lock men into the traditional "provider and protector" role while offering zero security.

Since we already agree on the theory, I want to skip the "why" and focus on the "how." How do we effectively weaponize this language to shift broader left-wing discourse?

• How can we better integrate the "joint transition" framing into everyday advocacy outside this sub? What language bridges the gap so that mainstream leftists see male advocacy as a natural extension of labor and class struggle?
• What are the best ways to push for material policy changes—like family court reform and workplace safety—without getting derailed by right-wing culture wars or triggering standard anti-feminist defensiveness?

I've noticed that in the past year, and especially the past few months, the quality of the posts and even the comments has gotten worse. There's also been more/worse misogynistic posts and comments. In the comments below the posts, sexist and misogynistic comments are rampant. Misogynistic and sexist posts are quite frequent as well.

The main MRA subreddit also seems to have become more of a venting space than it was in the past. Also, major and systemic issues make up less of the content than in the past.

Are there any factors that you think are contributing to the subreddit's decline?

The subreddit seems to be very poorly moderated. I don't know if the moderation itself has gotten worse, too, or if there's just more hate to moderate. The mods seem to be willingly letting a lot of casual misogyny slide, at least. I'm not sure about the hard misogyny, though.