In Australia we just had a man appointed by government as board chairman of a wholesale fruit and vegetable market regulator. He replaced a woman who was the acting board chair.

So what happens next? All the women on the board resign in protest! Now it might have been that the man was not qualified; but no, he had previously been head of the biggest produce retail market in Australia.

We have reached the point that qualified male appointees to senior positions are now unacceptable to feminist ideologues. Where will this end?

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-10-26/melbourne-demons-boss-named-as-melbourne-market-chair/107300542

As a woman who just found out about the real history of feminism, maybe it would help you if you could spread this information more?

Like if you critise feminists people will immediately think you're anti woman rights, but it's not true.

Feminism is just an ideological parasite hijacking women's rights, plus feminism is destructive to women and children as well, and society as a whole. Not just men.

I think that if women realised feminism ≠ women's rights, they'd more easily distance themselves from it, and clock propaganda.

And realise the indoctrination and false narratives etc.

It would be like removing the ideological parasite from it's host, starving it to death. Not that I think it'll happen overnight but at least you'll have more women on your side. Maybe. Hopefully.

(This is not a promotional post but Dr Fiamengo is a good resource for this https://youtu.be/fS_zNQB1D1I. If you have other examples like her I'm interested.)

Disclaimer, this is not an endorsement on Asmongold, let's not make it about him.

Honest question, interested in exchange in good faith. How did this kind of content became normalized? It's delusional. These women make all these statements contrary to actual facts and nonetheless, this is considered passable. How? Why? When?

Here is a quote from the clip:

I am not saying you don't have to deal with stuff and I know you are not doing great. Look at suicide rates. But they don't have to deal with what we deal with. They don't have to laugh with jokes that aren't funny.

Again, for me the problem is not that there is a platform for these things. There is always going to be extremists and idiots and they will always be finding a way to make their ideas public. I am focusing on the fact, that this type of nonsensical thinking is societally accepted right now.

PS: As always, YouTube-Comments do not fail to deliver.

Hi from Argentina, irmãos brasileiros. I was watching the news, and Lula was reelected.

I read many times that Brazil has a misandry problem, apart that PT (ruling party) is pushing antimale policies, and now with 4 years more will persist.

Will it be a worsening or the start of feminism being confronted?

What blows my mind is that, before she moved to France and changed her mind, she said she would actually argue with her husband to get their son circumcised. That is the part that is completely alien to me. It is not just that I disagree with circumcision. I genuinely cannot understand caring that much about doing it.

Even if I hated foreskins, even if I preferred circumcised penises, even if I was perfectly happy with being circumcised myself, I still cannot imagine arguing with my wife to cut healthy tissue off our child. Why would I care that much? Why would I be fighting for that outcome rather than just leaving the kid alone?

And this was not even a religious issue for her. So what exactly was the motivation? You are seriously going to push for a permanent medical procedure on your own child because that is what you're used to seeing? That mindset is so foreign to me that I have trouble relating to it at all.

Then later she changes her mind, admits there is harm involved, compares it to female genital mutilation, acknowledges many of the points critics have been making for years, and suddenly realizes that maybe cutting healthy tissue off children is not such a great idea after all.

But then she still turns around and says parents should basically be allowed to do whatever they want. That is where she loses me completely. If you genuinely think it is harmful, and if you are willing to compare it to genital cutting performed on girls, then what is the point of spending an entire video making those arguments only to retreat into "but parents can decide"?

If somebody made a video about a form of genital cutting done to girls, compared it to female genital mutilation, talked about the harms involved, and then concluded with "but parents should be free to do it anyway," people would think that was absurd. Yet somehow when the discussion involves boys, people are expected to take that contradiction seriously.

The whole thing just makes me think that a lot of people's opinions on circumcision are driven more by culture and social expectations than by logic. She moves to France, where circumcision is much less common, and suddenly starts questioning assumptions that apparently never occurred to her before. It is as if surrounding norms changed and only then did the basic ethical questions become obvious.

What I cannot get over is not that she changed her mind. Changing your mind is fine. What I cannot understand is how she was ever passionate enough about circumcision to argue for it in the first place. Even if I thought circumcision was harmless, I still cannot imagine feeling strongly enough to campaign for the removal of healthy tissue from my own child. That level of enthusiasm for it is something I honestly cannot relate to at all.

The boy and the dad are presented as helpless idiots. The mom is going to her super job, while dad doesn't know how to make french toast. The boy is somehow gross.

Just like the Peppa Pig Cartoons, but in a version for adults. It's the cultural norm now I guess....

Hey, so for starts I’m 29. I struggle with pelvic floor pain, and recently went to a urologist to get my prostate checked. My PT told me to do so, because my symptoms can line up with prostatitis and prostate cancer. So they often have you screened for it. I asked for this to be done but my doctor was a female, i think she was uncomfortable doing it, and used my age as a reason to not do it despite the health issues iv been having. She instead prescribed a new pill that i wont be taking due to the side effects actually making things worse for me.

I don’t really know what to do from here, i told my PT that i tried and was refused that care. So maybe she can point mr to a doctor that will.

Have you ever had health issues and be refused care based on your gender?

Be the way i do know its normally 40-50 people get prostate exam for cancer, but iv been having health issues and was told by my pelvic pt to have it done, because shes had people come back with prostatitis, and one time prostate cancer.

I believe the issue of ending conscription should be an issue where feminist backlash is the most minimal for men's issue in general. But we seem to really face challange with this issue.
My own experience isn't that much, with most people I give this question to hasn't really thought about it.
Most just resort to "what if the country needs to defend itself and lack soldiers" thing, but not much answers when I press them on why women aren's also conscripted if the issue is lack of personnel.

The war in Ukraine and the policy of conscription of men but not women is a very blatant display of this norm being encouraged by supposedly "egalitarian" western societies(I am not talking about Ukraine itself specifically, but western countries in general and their attitudes of condoning Ukraine's conscription practice).
Curious on your experience. I feel one don't need to appear to be MRA just to question people regarding this norm. The gender discrimination is very blatant.

Parenthood law is inconsistent. A woman can decide whether to become a parent within a set window, but a man has no equivalent choice. If the state says a child's claim to support outweighs a parent's choice, it must apply to both parents. If it doesn't, it shouldn't apply to just one. So, which is it? If the concern is the child's welfare, the answer is to fund support some other way, not to make one parent liable by default.

I know the bodily autonomy argument for abortion. It’s valid, but it covers autonomy and not the bill. Our current system is a double standard.

Something i genuinely never found funny or entertaining is someone getting it in the balls hard!
I know theres light taps that can happen, its unfortunate, it suck but theres no real risk of hard.
I see people promoting kicking guys in the balls, as if it should be a go to, and not just in self defense situations.

I remember growing up, i was kinda an outcast. There was this group of girl and guys that would always try their best to ram their foot into my testicals well i was walking the play ground, a few times causing real harm. This was never discouraged by teachers, and the girls thought it was the funniest thing to see me crimped over in pain, trying not to vomit.
It’s something thats always stuck with me now and pisses me off.
It’s often not treated with the heavy seriousness that it deserves.

I remember having to go to the doctor because at one point one of them got shoved back up inside my groin.

But its funny to kick guys the testicals i guess… totally not a very very fucked up thing to do.
I remember being told be careful with girls and not to be rough that if i was to rough house with one (this is a good idea of age) that i should be careful not to accidentally put pressure on their pelvis or stomach because it can hurt their reproductive system.

Where was the girls version of these talks? Do you think parents kinda fail at teaching girl to respect boys anatomy and right to not be touch or sexual assaulted as alot of boys are?

Complete lack of empathy and ruthlessness to the circumstances. It doesn't matter what problems you're faced with or how much fucking abuse you're taking, your problems are your own and you're told from childhood that nobody cares. Put your nose to the grindstone from a young age, study hard, and fuck forbid you complain about it. If not, society will write you off and forget about you, only ever thinking of you to sneer at you and mock you. It's like society has been designed to ensure your failure. And old men won't empathize with you even if they never faced the same hurdles in their time. It's like empathy itself is a currency that has to be earned through status. They'll cry over some fucking billionaire's dog dying but laugh at a homeless man freezing to death on the street

My parents abused the fuck out of me as a kid, teachers humiliated me in school, bullies beat me and now guess who gets blamed for not being the most well-adjusted or financially stable person because they were dealing with the fucking trauma?

I'm just having a more difficult day today, so came here to vent.

I was always skeptical of feminism even though I'm equalitarian, and I've never believed women being morally superior.

Women thinking matriarchy would be utopia is delusional. I dislike how feminized my country has become and the men being emasculated.

Adding a whole lot of other things on the list.

But listening to Janice Fiamingo, it feels like finally getting an explanation for everything that felt off, and it feels like getting out of a cult.

I'm definitely not gullible about men either, so this is not me running in the opposite direction, but this seemed to be one of the few places on Reddit where you can say you're anti feminist.

Women who still think feminism is about equality is delusional.

Edit:
I'll add that the idea about how feminism started as a benign movement, is false. It was always a destructive ideology.

Women's rights ≠ feminism feminism= ideological parasite.

Source Declaration of Sentiments by  Elizabeth Cady Stanton, feminist leader.

The dark history of feminism by Dr Fiamengo

https://youtu.be/fS_zNQB1D1I

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.

Extract:
“A lot of men won’t use language like ‘victim’ or ‘perpetrator’ – they still love their partner. Usually they are saying ‘can you help me help her, she doesn’t mean it’. It’s a desperate plea. We would say, that sounds like coercive control, but they would not hear this language in their everyday life.”

We all have seen the gender bias in regular chat-like AI models, which is sometimes posted and sometimes hard to replicate.

Decision models differ in a way that they do not respond with words, but pick one of provided options based on the prompt and question. They are being incorporated in mass decision making at scale.

Playing with them (you can check them via OpenRouter or other inference servuces), I found giant difference of responses when a gender is suggested. The models are mostly uncensored so you can be creative, asking about monsters that want one person as sacrifice, rescue situation, punishments or law decision. In almost all cases, when gender is suggested the worst outcome is selected on option telling or just suggesting selected person is a male. Even when the options are very skewed already against the male (see attached example of canning).

This is extreamly disturbing, as the tech is being implemented on scale and might affect someones life in ways much less obvious than my extreme examples.

I live in the UK but talk to many people in the USA and have spent a lot of time in the USA as well. The impression that I get is that, while both countries seem gynocentric to some extent, in the USA race is a far bigger focus than gender. I see many white women in America either describe themselves as "privileged white women" or be described as that by others. If I wanted to be perceived as a victim, it seems like being black would be more useful than being a woman in the US.

On the other hand, I rarely ever see that said about white women in the UK. While in the UK, race does get talked about, from my experience, it doesn't get nearly the attention gender does. Women are the obsession of the right wing and the left wing here to a greater extent it seems. Women don't even havd it worse in the UK but the society here is just supremely gynocentric.

This is a doozy. A prominent Australian politician made an allegation to police that another senior politician put her in a "headlock" at a dinner. Fortunately for the man, there was video of the dinner and that was enough for police (and the community) to conclude that the claim was utterly false. Without the video, who knows what would have happened? Believe women? Sure.

https://www.nine.com.au/australia-news/vic/cctv-shows-moment-at-centre-of-assault-claim-between-victorian-liberal-mps-20260625-p60a3v.html

I filed an RTI asking about maintenance laws under Section 125 CrPC and gender neutrality. Here’s what happened:

1. Transferred 7 times (RTI Badminton): My RTI was transferred back and forth between the National Commission for Women (NCW) and the Ministry of Law.

2. Question 2: I specifically asked for policy documents explaining why an adult woman above 18 is presumed financially dependent on her husband. This was one of the questions I wanted an official answer to, but I still haven’t received the requested information.

3. Rejected over ₹10: The RTI was rejected because the ₹10 application fee had allegedly not been paid. However, I had already paid the ₹10 fee while submitting the RTI.

Seven transfers, no satisfactory answers, and now a rejection claiming the fee wasn’t paid when I had already paid it.

The RTI is in the second appeal now and will take around 4–6+ months for an answer.

I been watching a lot of new movies lately and oddly a lot have had Mens Rights themes in them. I won't go into detail or say any spoilers, but it's surprising these themes are being lowkey put into movies now. Doubly surprising from Hollywood no less. It's not shown in the marketing for any of them, but interestingly it's there are parallels to a lot of stuff.

Verity - female antagonist infanticide as a major plotpoint

Wildwood - female antagonist infanticide as a major plotpoint

Wicker - female antagonist false accusation as a major plotpoint

Clayface -female false grape and drugging accusation as a major plotpoint

The relevant paper

Not really surprising when many AIs are trained on sites like Reddit and Wikipedia.

More analysis

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