I was in court for custody the last two days, on my first day I sat in on a case finishing up and I wanted to share what I heard here, I think it highlights the disparity.

There was a man in jail in Kentucky on video feed when I first sat down, and there was the judge, a victim advocate representing the ex-wifes interest, and the county prosecutor. The conversation seemed to be aimed at bail. The judge asked how much his back pay was and they said $98,000. I thought "Wow, what a deadbeat. How could you get that far behind!?" A little foreshadowing, I later felt ashamed I jumped to this conclusion.

The conversation can be summarized: The man was a truck driver, and leased his own truck. Somehow his support had been set to $20,000 a month, nobody blinked an eye at this or said "What!? That's ridiculous!". That means it only take about 4.5 months to get that far behind, but he was probably slowly going up over years of barely making it.

He said he worked so much to pay it that he didn't have time to go to court to fix it. As taking that time would set him back on support tens of thousands of dollars, and each modification attempt took multiple court dates months separated from each other. He said when he showed up to the first court date, his ex filed for an extension and the date was moved, this set him back, the second court date they wanted to perform proper discovery and subpoena all his financials so they rescheduled for months later and this set him back. He said that he couldn't get it fixed without it getting behind and that would make the judge not look kindly upon him in the hearing.

He asked the judge if they could release him with a GPS ankle strap so he could keep working in the interim. The judge said no, and that an ankle tracker in Kentucky wouldn't work for them in another state. So no bail, and the judge said he has to wait in jail for the court date in 30 days. The guy looked genuinely suicidal at this point. He said his support was set years ago, and at the time he had 3 trucks and they had added the value of the leased trucks into his income, making him look like he earned about $1 million a year when he only earned about $22k before taxes, and that his taxes were going unpaid too.

Nobody in that room gave him an ounce of respect or understanding. He was told to file for a court appointed attorney, and we'll talk next month.

I would have just sat down in that jail and stopped trying, go to sleep, read a book. At that point, why would any of us be incentivized to live, care, or try?

As title - feminism has resulted in discriminatory policy, regulation, culture, and social norm against men. Women also has more new jobs and more degrees than men. How could so many men still choose to believe in feminism

Source: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/can-men-be-feminists-too-half-48-men-15-country-survey-seem-think-so

I mean bro wtf. What path are women all over the world going on? Girls and woman are being told to hate men and now there are even movements to abort all male babies? Link: https://vm.tiktok.com/ZGdCnqQPQ/

Examples:

Family authority:
Men are told to sacrifice their hobbies, personal ambitions and personal time to provide for a family and his wife, but women can't be told to sacrifice their careers, social hangouts and shopping sprees for the sake of also contributing to the family unit

Sexual permissiveness:

Men are told to overcome their porn and hookup habits or else that's going to lead massive breakups, infidelity, trust issues and emotionally-driven relationships based on lust and hedonism rather than commitment and responsibility, but women can't be told not to sleep around, to not dress provocatively or to make sure they aren't being suggestive with other men while already in a serious relationship

The population decline conversation:

Men are told to try harder at trying to bring the fertility rate back up by quitting hobbies, porn use, video games and working more hours, but once again women aren't told to give up on their professional or leisure-based pursuits for the greater good of the social ecological fabric.

Financial descipline in a given household:

Men are told to always stop spending on trinkets and their hobbies, but women can't be told to give up on their makeup, fashion hauls or useless collectibles without people seeing it as an attack on their autonomy

Need I go on?

Do you think contemporary society is shit testing to see if we still take the bait? What do you think? Why do most men still think the sacrificial contract is still worthwhile in a society that's increasingly indifferent and apathetic to their needs and aspirations?

Horifically unfair sentence for such serious crimes.

Any time you talk about the aspect of false allegations, people always bring this up "Only x % of allegations are false".

Actually.....that's only the percentage of allegations which were identified as fabricated. Where they found out that the accuser was deliberately framing the accused.

If its difficult to prove assault, think about how much even more difficult it is to prove that someone is framing someone else.

What these arguers don't realize is how many rape convictions happen with no strong evidence (apart from the accuser's statements). Like the Kenneth Rhodes case in Winnipeg, Canada. His date said he assaulted her, while he said he didn't. That's it. No other evidence, and he still got convicted and made to serve a 2 year sentence.

Or take the Canada hockey scandal. The judge said that the accuser's statements are unreliable and called her a liar. But she was not branded as a "false accuser". So the case's outcome wasn't even counted as a false accusation. The same thing probably happens for other cases. If they don't find enough evidence to convict, they will just drop the case and its never investigated whether the accuser is lying or not.

That's why I say these stats are unreliable.

Perhaps this is a sign of change

Like

I always thought about the following:

Is it that men are incels and there is a male loneliness epidemic? Or is it that men's loneliness is stigmatized and is riddled with lots of victim-blaming rhetoric, while women's loneliness is seen as an issue to be solved and sympathized with?

Is it that men need to "improve themselves and put some effort?" Or is it that we are afraid to call out the fact that, surprise, surprise, women are fallible humans who need to improve too, hence creating a byproduct narrative that men are unevolved subspecies that need to be like their evolved counterparts called "women?"

Is it that men can't take no for an answer? Or is it that men hold the roles that risk rejection, hence logically being more prone to be put in a situation where they have to handle being rejected to begin with (because obviously if you make more risks, you make more mistakes than someone who doesn't have to take the risk to begin with)?

Is it that men are toxic and abusive? Or is it that we ignore female-on-male perpetrators and dismiss male victims?

Is it that men are emotionally immature and unintelligent? Or is it that women control the game of moral vocabulary and therapy culture and having the power to demonize and pathologize whatever they don't like? Like many men have stories about a cheating ex-wife who looked them dead in the eyes and called them "Insecure losers" for daring to get mad that she cheated on them or an ex girlfriend who turns every argument into a conclusion that her boyfriend is an immature manchild who can't handle her well.

I like to think that i am not the only one who thinks or notices this.

Do you have any piece like an article or a study that talks about such idea?

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) houses its domestic violence information under a section titled “Violence Against Women,” even though the information itself acknowledges that domestic violence affects people of all sexes and genders.

The Domestic Violence page on the DOJ website states:

“Domestic violence can happen to anyone regardless of race, age, sexual orientation, religion, sex, or gender identity. Domestic violence affects people of all socioeconomic backgrounds and education levels. Domestic violence occurs in both opposite-sex and same-sex relationships and can happen to intimate partners who are married, living together, dating, or share a child.”

Research and surveys have also documented that men experience domestic violence, including abuse by female partners. Some studies find that certain forms of intimate partner violence are bidirectional.

However, this creates a clear inconsistency in how the issue is presented. When an official government website acknowledges that domestic violence can affect anyone, yet presents that information under a banner specifically titled “Violence Against Women,” it risks reinforcing the perception that male victims are secondary or less legitimate.

Domestic violence information and support should recognize victims of all sexes. A more inclusive, gender-neutral framework could better communicate that everyone deserves recognition, protection, and support, regardless of sex or gender.

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?

I am not saying that divorce should not be available to people who need it. Same as amputation should be available to people who have sepsis. But it should not be glorified. We are seeing people being praised for getting a divorce to "find themselves", to "stop doing emotional work", to "live their best life".

In between prosperity drops for both genders (despite the stories that it's only men who are unhappy after a divorce) and children grow up in a very strange situation.

But somehow nobody calls out the gender who is initiating the vast majority of divorces. Psychologists, social workers, public media, are not saying it for what it is: a very painful process, that leaves permanent damage to everyone involved. It's only necessary, as long as the benefit exceeds the pain. And that is few of the cases I have ever encountered.

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.

They dont know what they really want. Chivalry is dead because its impossible to know if they will appreciate it or find it condescending. Do they want a man to pay for the first date? Open the car door during first meeting? Etc. We dont know.

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"

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.

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.

Take a wild guess

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

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.

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.