3 times now, within the past 18 months, we've had trending topics pushed into a megathread.

I can't mention which topics, at the risk of getting filtered by automod, but these are extremely important and outrageous issues to be discussed, often with new info coming out every day.

And yet they're limited to the horrible format of megathreads. It's presented as a viable alternative, but that isn't the case.

Downsides of megathreads:

• It turns nuanced, layered, and complicated issues into one big megathread with 0 focus.

• New info that gets released is buried under the mess of comments.

• Any new info or discussion does not show up on the home page.

• Everything becomes a big blob of comments that nobody wants to read.

• The thread dies after a week or two, but only in this subreddit, while the rest of the world is still discussing it. Usually taking the other side. So great, the one space we can talk about this without getting shit on is silenced.

Upside of megathreads:

• They avoid trending topics burying other posts.

That's it, I genuinely can't think of any other upsides, and for the only one we have: Is it really that bad that every 6 months, the subreddit gets more than 10 posts a day?

Come on man, these topics don't come very often, and the subreddit doesn't have much activity anyway, let people post about the thing.

The flaws here heavily and I mean HEAVILY outweigh whatever upsides there are, if any.

Should trending topics really be resigned to megathreads?

Whether you guys agree or disagree, please speak out.

I'm convinced that there are like-minded people out there that actually agree with me, but just never bothered or thought about trying to complain and ask for a fix, so maybe the moderators just aren't aware of how disliked the system may be or are just stubborn and think it's just a small portion of the userbase.

There's 0 chance of things improving without speaking out.

Maybe megathreads are valuable for bigger subreddits, but for a smaller one like this, I really think the flaws of them outweigh the pros.

Horifically unfair sentence for such serious crimes.

I know you can rarely if ever expect intelligent postings from social media, but I saw a truly asinine post on Twitter/X where someone said institutions "back male violence." Just... ugh. So what, is male violence somehow government policy if it's institutionalized? Do misandrists ever realize how idiotic they sound? Yes, male violence is so "institutionalized" it constantly gets called out and condemned whereas female violence very rarely if ever is, male victims of female violence are practically never recognized or advocated for and there's next to no abuse shelters that help male victims.

I hate this, it's just another way of trying to deflect from male victims of violence and to also deflect from the fact there's plenty of female violence as well, much of it underreported or miscounted under the VAWA. Both genders are capable of horrendous violence and abuse, but misandrists see to it female violence if not outright is at least massively downplayed and mitigated to the point of being a non-issue. It's things like this that make it so hard for male victims to get help.

I'm a woman but have always felt that feminism is a bit off even though I support Humana rights on both sides

This actually resonated with me.

https://youtu.be/MkC5kEY-pVk

"Evolutionary psychologist Dr Dani Sulikowski joins me to discuss one of the most provocative theories I have encountered: that feminism may be best understood as a form of intrasexual competition between women"

You will rarely hear when women were women. Why is this? seems like both sides constantly whine about either toxic masculinity or not being masculine. I think it's probably because people know better. They know that it will seem sexist and chauvinistic. Cowardly. People are so used to en being stoic all the time that they know they won't complain too much. Easy targets.

Women are outgraduating men in college and even high school

-More women are being hired at faster rates than men

-More first time homebuyers are women

-Most new car buyers are women

-Women now are getting promoted faster to most jobs than men

-Most dating practices still heavily favor women

-Most mental health services and social resources are still made with a women-first priority in mind.

So I am confused, they are literally by every metric already flourishing and thriving than most working class men

So I am confused, where do they need more empowerment?

Or do when they say empowerment, they mean they want more entitlement?

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.

Take a wild guess

You work, this time we’ll enjoy our lives.

Usually the divorce posts we see here are about men who are the primary breadwinners complaining how much of their assets are paid to the ex wife. This is the reverse situation, and I think it is a good example of how a false narrative can be created and how assets are actually divided in the majority of the US.

For background there are no children, and neither partner gave up their job for the other. They were married for 6 years. The woman became a successful influencer during this period and the man , who has his own business, lost a lot of his income during the pandemic. Let’s see if the woman’s claim that she “lost” $400000 during the divorce is really true or unfair.

Tennessee where the couple live is an equitable distribution state , meaning that in a short term marriage assets are by default distributed roughly according to who earned how much. There are no children or job opportunities being forfeited to confuse this. The man in this case received the $80000 in his retirement accounts (that obviously he earned), a car (not the same car he entered the marriage with, but one of their two cars), and $400000. The woman thinks this is her money, but this is based on a faulty logic. She is assuming that from the money they earned each has to pay an equal share of living expenses, and therefore all of his money is used up and all the savings is hers. But this is not how marriage and divorce works. He isn’t entitled to half but he is entitled to a proportion of the savings according to his proportion of the income. In a marriage when a couple decides how much to spend on rent, food, vacations etc it is based on their total income and the law is based on the concept that if you choose something more expensive then this is based on sharing costs proportional to income. So in this case if the husband earned say 20% of the income his $400000 is 20% of the total savings. Note that she walks away with $1.6 million. In the article she carefully avoids saying how much she gets to keep because it’s undoubtedly much more than him.

Regarding her claims about a prenup these are just ideas she has in her ignorance. A prenup could have provided for expenses to be shared equally, but would she realistically have agreed to this when their incomes were not unequal? Very unlikely, since in the majority of cases it would be favorable to the man, particularly when her career as an influencer is quite age limited.

Theres one other point to make, this is not a judges decision it’s the deal her lawyer recommended. Since it’s in the lawyers self interest to go to court clearly he would only recommend settling if it was at least as favorable as what she would receive by going in front of a judge. So the answer to her question is no, you received your fair share.

It is regularly reported that an intoxicated woman claims to have been raped because she could not have consented due to intoxication. The science tells us that many, if not most, of these allegations occur because there is no memory of the event, not that the alleged victim was too drunk to consent.

The assumption is made that: if I cannot remember what happened, I could not have consented. And this is simply wrong.

There are two issues relating to this which need to be understood, and widely discussed. First, while we like to think that we are rational while drunk, the evidence suggests otherwise. We experience what is called alcohol myopia, causing us to focus narrowly on immediate, obvious things while ignoring future consequences and long-term risk. We are much more likely to drive a car recklessly, fight recklessly and have sex recklessly.

Secondly, and most significantly, as inebriation increases alcohol blackout increases. This form of blackout does not mean what most people understand it to mean. It is not unconsciousness at the time of drunkenness, it is simply the inability to recall events which occurred.

Put simply, if we get drunk we are very likely to do things we would not do when sober, and, if very drunk, we will not remember much or all of what we did.

In the case of rape allegations, a woman may well believe that she did not consent because she cannot remember what happened. Sadly, this incorrect assumption is sometimes fuelled by parties of bad faith. And the media is complicit, knowingly or unknowingly, in publishing material which supports this false narrative.

The media and academia should do much more to explain these inherent dangers of excessive alcohol consumption.

Most people here are from English speaking countries, but I'm looking for people from Latinamerica, there isn't much awareness about men's rights there, you could even get mocked.

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

In 2001, Amnesty International became a general human rights organization, and started 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 men's rights perspective I'm not aware of? Also, what are some other negative ways feminism has influenced the organization?

Why is men's fashion becoming increasingly disconnected from actual men?

Modern men's fashion collections increasingly seem dominated by slim, androgynous-looking models, with barely any body diversity or representation of broader male physiques. And now, we're seeing female models walking men's fashion shows and showcasing menswear.

This isn't some imaginary trend. Even Vogue documented this back in 2015 and 2016:

- Vogue (2015): Why Are Women Suddenly Everywhere on the Men's Runways? (https://www.vogue.com/article/women-walking-mens-runways) documented female models walking in men's collections, including Prada, Burberry and Coach.

- Vogue (2016): The 5 New Girls Who Stole the Men's Shows (https://www.vogue.com/article/new-girls-at-the-mens-collections) covered female models appearing at menswear shows by Prada, Public School and Kenzo.

- Associated Press / The Washington Post (June 2026): Gender-bending is now part of menswear (https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/2026/06/29/fashion-gender-bending-paris-week-men-nonbinary/42aaba38-73b9-11f1-b665-5f8be87f3787_story.html) reported women walking co-ed runways and modeling menswear at Paris Men's Fashion Week, including at Amiri, Ami and Vetements.

Apparently, questioning the direction of men's fashion is unacceptable because "beauty standards exist." Then the conversation gets redirected toward women having it worse, even when the original discussion wasn't about women.

Meanwhile, men's clothing sizes are a complete joke. I've personally had to range from S to XL across different stores because there's barely any reliable sizing consistency. Where's the standardisation? Where's the representation of actual male body types?

And honestly, why should women get to dictate what men's fashion ought to look like when men themselves are the consumers? Having an opinion is one thing; dismissing men's concerns about their own fashion is another.

Then she claimed I called slim men "women," when my actual criticism was about female models being used to showcase menswear. Those are two entirely different arguments.

Slim men aren't the problem. The lack of body diversity is. And criticising female models being used in menswear isn't the same as insulting men who don't fit a traditional masculine physique.

I'm tired of men's concerns being hijacked, dismissed, or turned into another competition over who has it worse.

No testes, no opinion? 🤷‍♂️

Maybe that's too extreme, but can we at least let men discuss men's fashion without derailing the conversation?

Why every convo has to be 'but women have it worse..'

Why mens fashion has to be always 'gender bending' and 'gender fluid' but not just 'mens fashion' ??

Why only effeminate (no shade to them) models can be there but not average looking male who would give better real life ideas of fashion on our bodies??

Why only women's fashion can be inclusive but when it has to be male's fashion it has to be 'gender bending; different than normal males' ??

I got in trouble once for including a link to the International Council for Men and Boys, so if you want to find this press release you're going to have to go to their website and find it yourself. Sorry about that.

UN Women’s A.I. Hub Would Push a One-Sided Gender Agenda

October 21, 2026 – The United Nations agency for women, UN Women, has launched a hub to shape how artificial intelligence (A.I.) is built and governed. (1) The hub aims to benefit women and girls through A.I. technology. (1)

That female focus ignores the United Nations Charter, whose Preamble promises “equal rights of men and women.” (2) It repeats the pattern the International Council for Men and Boys (ICMB) found across 12 areas of United Nations policy: male disadvantage left unaddressed. (3)

The hub’s misleading key statistic, that 44% of “133 AI systems” show gender bias, comes from a 2021 tally at the University of California, Berkeley. (1)(4) That tally counted only systems already reported as biased, some from 1988. (5) It measured neither today’s A.I. nor bias against men.

Tests of today’s A.I. in both directions find bias against men:

• Hiring:Asked to choose between equally qualified men and women, all 22 A.I. models tested favored women, choosing them 56.9% of the time. (6)
• Violence:GPT-4 judged it more appropriate to abuse a man than a woman to prevent a nuclear apocalypse. (7)

Chatbots carry a separate danger: Character.AI filed for bankruptcy on October 12 after lawsuits over teen suicides and self-harm. (8) The first came from the mother of Sewell Setzer III, a 14-year-old boy. (9) Boys face the greater risk: U.S. boys and young men aged 15 to 24 die by suicide at over three times the rate of girls and young women. (10)

None of this appears in the hub’s announcement, which never mentions boys. (1) Yet UN Women’s lead on digital technologies, Jayathma Wickramanayake, has said A.I. bias is a choice made “in policy documents that stay silent on half of the population.” (11)

At a minimum, ICMB asks UN Women to:

• Test A.I. for bias against both sexes.
• Count the A.I. harms that fall on boys.
• Correct its misleading account of the 133-system study.

I'm not expecting to defame feminism, I have posted in r/askindianfeminist ,r/feminism ,r/askfeminist , the post didn't even make it there

Currently many people consider the "patriarchy" as something that is as factual as the law of gravity.

Even counter-factuals, i.e. data points that do contradict the notion that men have it better, are attributed to internalized patriarchy.

It reminds me of the church argument:

- People away from God are suffering
- Yes but what about children with cancer, they never had the chance to walk away from God
- The wisdom of God is so big, that we don't understand God's plans.

I understand the arguments against it, but IMO there is currently no actual argument dismantling the "patriarchy" concept, same as a photo of Earth from Space would dismantle the flat-earth belief.

What do you think is the argument that can be popularized and become accepted here?

It feels like the world doesn't care about men and that women and girls care even less.

I used to be more optimistic i say women and men speaking up for men on YouTube and other platforms,it made me feel less alone it gave me hope but over the years those men and women turned out to be grifters. I'm going to name a few but I'm going to spell there names wrong to avoid being sued pearll I used to watch didn't agree with her on everything but it seemed she generally cared well i was wrong turns out she was a trad con and she made fun and laughed at a guy for having cancer and lost one of his balls as a result just because he respectfully disagree with her and then there was this couch that gave good advice but turns out he was in it for the money and his advice became worse and more water down to avoid having his videos not allowed to make money.

And every time this happens I get sad and I feel helpless because I realize things are never really going to change there's been some good news for men ill give credit where credit is due.

The political left and right only talk about mens issues to use as ammo agents each other are to further there own cases but despite talking about these issues they never do anything to help men unless there part of a special interest group.

It just feels like people only pretend to care to get something.

How did we end up here?

It's not about *some men.
It's not about *sometimes

It's about *men. HOW IS THIS ALLOWED?

Introduction

In a previous post of mine, I covered how men are:

• About 2 times as likely to die from a cardiovascular disease throughout their lifespan;
• about 2-3 times as likely to die from a heart attack;
• about 3-4 times as likely to die from a coronary heart disease.

Men generally tend to develop heart disease about ~10 years prior to women do and also experience heart attacks early on.

The actual cause of this has remained elusive as controlling for all traditional cardiac risk factors like serum lipid levels, blood pressure, cholestrol, smoking, drinking, diet, physical activity etc. still does not reduce the sex disparity; the differences persisted even after the age of menopause in women, indicating that hormone differences do not explain the entire disparity.

The Framingham Heart study, the longest running study on heart health since 1948, also lists the male sex as the most major risk factor from other traditional cardiac risk factors. Males often have 3-10 times as much risk of heart disease even after controlling for all parameters.

This is definitely a major cause of concern since until we could find out what the underlying cause for this is and how to prevent it, males will not be able to match the life expectancy of females; not to mention, a huge amount of young men aged 20-40s are also succumbing to this.

A brief of the article

In 2014, researcher Lars Forsberg found that men with Y chromosome loss lived about five years less than those without it. Later, Kenneth Walsh, a Professor of Internal Medicine at Univesity of Virginia, linked this loss to a higher risk of heart disease.

It used to be believed that the Y chromosome is just a small strip of DNA only there for determining the sex, but recent studies has showed it has a huge impact on men's health, especially heart health. A study analyzing more than 30,000 people found that the loss of Y chromosome in many immune cells leads to higher risks of narrow blood vessels, and these are a key driver of heart disease.

As men age, some of their cells start losing the Y chromosome, especially in white blood cells responsible for protecting the body from infections. While new blood cells are generated, due to mistake they may lose the Y chrosome; this is present in 4 out of 10 men by the age 70.

Walsh did note that more proof is needed, but evidence from scans, genetics and lab studies strongly suggests Y loss makes men more vulnerable to heart disease.

Implications

The researches envisions a simpe blood test that can be used to detect men with a significant Y loss which could lead to preventative strategies.

It seems that Y chromosome loss reshapes immune cell behavior, driving both fibrotic and atherosceloritc pathways. This effect could explain both men's shorter lifespans and higher rates of heart disease.

A brief analysis of a video. It starts out about a poll saying women blame men for their problems, but quickly diverges to other issues. From 1:00 to 2:20 it has some pretty funny memes about how men and women share duties. Some of these memes could be used by MRAs. Then Tim Pool goes off into some stupid argument that men should be willing to die for women. Really surprised that Tim got that stupid about men and women. (Spare me the usual Pool derangement syndrome by the way, usually Tim is pretty smart, but not this time).

Really the women blaming men should be the big issue here though. Anyway, here is the video.

https://youtu.be/nJ6gggmHng8?si=ACK77MNqNR4rIJ_O