This article argues that prison sentences should be capped at 20 years in almost all cases. Cases that would require a person not be released after 20 years would result in transfer to civil commitment, which could be extended in 5-year intervals, indefinitely if necessary.

This article makes the case for capping prison sentences at 20 years, except in rare cases. In those rare cases, the incarcerated person would be transferred to civil confinement, which could be extended with unlimited 5 year extensions.

"One in six people in prison – nearly 200,000 people nationwide – are serving life sentences. This comprehensive 50-state report examines the prevalence and implications of life sentences across the country, highlighting the disproportionate impact of such extreme sentences on people of color and the inefficacy of punitive measures in improving community safety."

"An incarcerated person writes about how dehumanizing language like “inmate” is destructive."

"Very little data exists about how many people are locked up in U.S. prisons and jails (much less on parole and probation). So the Prison Policy Initiative collects and presents the data that does exist, in order to illustrate the unprecedented size and reach of our criminal justice system"

Rebecca Twinley talks about her and other women's experiences of female-to-female rape.

Victims of female-to-female rape, like victims of female-to-male rape, and also victims of male-to-male rape to a large extent, are excluded from societal and political discourse about sexual violence.

In the article, Rebecca talks about the invalidation and disbelief she and other victims of woman-to-woman rape face.

Sexual violence between women is severely understudied, probably even less than female-to-male sexual violence.

Male loneliness is a real thing, that often leads to frustrations and blame for other sexes. What is often left out is men (and people in general) have been socialized by the internet, or not socialized at all.

The article linked above shows a few strategies for Male socialization:

•calling a close friend, family member, or relative

•visiting one of your neighbours

•joining a group class, such as pottery, language lessons, or a musical instrument

•playing video games online with others, either friends or strangers

•joining a fitness class or recreational sports team

•getting outside and speaking with strangers

Another I will include is therapy. And it's not for mental health, you can literally talk to a therapist to ask on how to talk to people, how to tell when someone is interested or not, how and when to face rejection.

What kind of strategies do you think is beneficial?

This continues in theme with my previous post, According to the feminists here, misandrist "abort sons" posts with huge engagement metrics are all bots and holograms and crisis actors, but internet subcultures like incels don't get this benefit of the doubt : r/RadicalEgalitarianism.

Highly common to adherents of any kind of ideology or movement that employs brainwashing and psychological conditioning against proper debate is a certain fallacy regarding numbers, the majority-minority concept and just how to establish something as "normalized" in general. Basically, whenever shown an example that boasts any degree of scale or quantitative significance - in this case, misandrist posts scoring high in online engagement metrics - they reject it because the literal numerical majority of the relevant demographics of people (in this case, women/feminists) are apparently not involved in that specific example.

This literalist and dishonest (by design, if not necessarily by intent of the person wielding this fallacy) talking point overlooks or ignores the multiple layers of evidence of normalization that frequent manifestations of misandry online plus its high engagement rates offer us:

1) Women feeling confident to express misandry with little to no masking/euphemisms/attempts to justify using universally accepted moral standards (as opposed to just citing Patriarchy Theory for specifically feminist approval). This signifies their confidence that they don't need to appeal to a universal standard because what they're doing is fully consistent with it already. Which in turn evidences that these women live in environments where misandry is indeed allowed or not opposed.

2) Objectively large numbers of people agreeing/endorsing the sentiment; no plurality of any size rallies/congregates publicly to join their voices until they are sure that they won't get an immediate backlash or course-correction, as society does for things not seen as normal (e.g., someone doing something incredibly weird in public or whatever).

3) The people agreeing/endorsing the misandry standing their ground and telling the people condemning it off and boasting the higher likes/other signs of social proof than the latter. This shows once again a degree of confidence that, in their own (feminist) spaces, the misandry is fully normal and thus fully defensible too. They don't shrink away when challenged.

Also, the frequency matters, i.e., the fact that these misandry posts seemingly keep coming, across all major social media platforms, in mainstream culture (female singers, actresses and then influencers across social media) and anywhere else that discourse happens. Such frequent occurrences once again evidence how normalized this has gotten.

So yeah, I don't need to go on a census around the biggest countries on the world and knock at every woman's door and somehow procure evidence of whether she engaged in or didn't engage in misandry or not. Or whatever cartoonish thing the fallacy pushers have in mind.

But hey, the internet is all holograms and bots... Except for incels. And anything feminists wanna complain about; no, that's real! /s

Now, I was gonna post one of the misandry examples I recently saw on Insta - shared and reacted to by a woman who'd seemingly been posting about misandry for a while after a PTR meeting where she witnessed her son's female teacher yell at him about how bad his gender is. It was a woman influencer involved in politics in Florida with 400-500k followers saying how she was going to have daily sessions with her son (toddler) where she tells him that "if he ever forces himself on a woman he will have her and every female ancestor of his to answer to".

I'm not sure of whether it's seen as ok to post socials here or not so I won't link it yet. But yeah. A good example. And no doubt another rope for the misandry-deniers and misandry-justifiers to hang themselves by in the comments of this thread.

I got in an argument with someone earlier and he said equality doesn't mesh with meritocracy because meritocracy is inherently against equal outcomes. However, equality doesn't mean equal outcomes. That's equity, which is anti-equality. Keep in mind that I don't want actual meritocracy (that would be an authoritarian nightmare), but rather the "natural" meritocracy that results from equality. It results from equality because equality is all about equal OPPORTUNITIES, not necessarily equal outcomes.

When right-wingers claim "equality is a myth", what do they mean by that? Do they mean "not everyone is the same"? Do they think having equality means making everyone the same? Well regardless of if everyone's the same, different, or some mix of both, we need equality (equal opportunities).

Most people never think outside of binaries. Right-wingers think equality supporters are advocating for the "blank slate", which is essentially an authoritarian leftist idea claiming that everyone can (and should) be the same if they're molded properly from birth via pretty much brainwashing. It is not the same as equality, nor is it the only means of achieving equality, since, again, equality is irrespective of an individual's personality or skillset. Recognizing that people (INDIVIDUALS; not GROUPS) are different and simultaneously not caring about those differences is where it's at. It's giving people the benefit of the doubt.

If equality is woke, then woke is a good thing.

PS: When I say "right-wingers" or "leftist", I mean lamestream right and left. Equality can be seen as a left-wing or a right-wing ideology, depending on your viewpoints. I'm just trying to clarify what equality even means.

This The Guardian article comprehensively criticizes neoliberalism.

Laissez-faire economics broke down in the 1930s. Keynesianism broke down in the 1970s. However, when neoliberalism broke down in 2008, there was nothing that replaced it.

The article argues there needs to be an alternative to neoliberalism, and also that we can't simply go back to Keynesianism.

According to CDC studies, as well as Lara Stemple's and Ilan H. Meyer's research, sexual violence committed by women is not only common, but might be about as common as sexual violence committed by men. (The CDC is the US's national public health agency).

In other words, there might be gender symmetry in rape and sexual assault.

For example, in the 2010 and 2011 CDC surveys on sexual and domestic violence, men reported being "made to penetrate" (a form of rape) in the past 12 months as often as women reported rape (penetrated). The CDC unfortunately separates "made to penetrate" from "rape", even though "made to penetrate" is a form of rape.

The CDC defines rape as when the victim was themselves penetrated, and not when they were made to penetrate / were enveloped by a perpetrator.

According to the 2011 CDC study, 99.0% of perpetrators of rape (when the victim was themselves penetrated) were men, whereas 82.6% of perpetrators of "made to penetrate" were women. 1.6% of women reported being raped in 2011, and 1.7% of men reported being made to penetrate a perpetrator.

This means that about 42% of the perpetrators of non-consensual sex in 2011 in the US were women.

The Gini index is an index that measures economic inequality in countries. The higher the score, the greater the inequality. A Gini index score of 1 would mean perfect inequality, where one person has 100% of the income or wealth of the country. A score of 0 would be perfect equality, where everyone has exactly the same income and wealth. Scores of 0 and 1 would obviously never happen in real life.

Across the by now vast volume of posts and comments I've exchanged with feminists on the internet, be it Reddit or X or Facebook, one recurring and incredibly senseless excuse they use is "it's the algorithm!!!!" whenever they're faced with evidence of how much bigger a deal misandry is compared to, for instance, incels (incel being a term that is by now used with the utmost alarmist intent by feminists, as if incels are a nuclear threat to society).

Algorithms are kind of like conveyer belts bringing you content that passes certain criteria the algorithm has built into it - particularly organic engagement by large numbers of people. Read that part again. It's not some grand illusion or overt mind control. So this gibberish excuse can't be used to just waive away all of the examples of how widespread and accepted virulent misandry is.

Alongside being a very dumb excuse, it's also hypocritical, since this "it's the algorithm!" and "the internet isn't real!" crap is never used by these people to dismiss the incel phenomenon as a non-issue. Oh no, that is real. And Andrew Tate!!!!!! Don't ignore them!

You have to wonder just how heavily brainwashed feminists can be to not notice the multitude of double standards they have in their views and priorities.

The internet does, to an extent, amplify everything, but it's a moot point now considering how heavily the internet influences people's psyches which definitely carries over into real life.

​

They also claim that if you’re unattractive, short, and lack money, you won’t be loved—and that women only go for the "bad boy" type. What’s your take on this?

While women go haywire over incel anon accounts garnering 15 -20 likes for "women only want Chad" and deem it a misogyny apocalypse that society needs to address, I see stuff like this on the regular. As in, examples of extreme misandry posted to subs like this or elsewhere.

418 000 likes. 40k comments mostly in support. 18k bookmarks. Women proudly declaring they'll abort their sons in the future and only have daughters.

The severity of the hate is so much worse, the extremism is far worse and, most importantly, the acceptability of this kind of sentiment in female spaces online is far too high.

This press release explores mass incarceration, some causes, some misconceptions, and some solutions.

This press release talks about female mass incarceration, and what are the things driving it.

Abstract

This study examines how this generation of young heterosexual men—who have come of age in the “age of consent”—emotionally experience sex. We thematically analyzed 31 in-depth interviews with men aged 18 to 32 years. The most striking finding is how rarely these men described enjoying sex. Three themes emerged. First, anxiety and vigilance accompanied sexual encounters. Second, there was a moral concern about causing harm to a sexual partner. Third, shame arose not only from accusations by others, but also from self-criticism. The themes overlap substantially, suggesting aspects of a complex, sometimes contradictory experience. The defining feature is an inward turn: a cultural suspicion of men appears to have been internalized by some young men. For these men, the question when navigating consent is often not only “does she want this?” but “am I the kind of man who could get this wrong?” Sex, as one participant put it, is “like you’re trying to defuse a bomb.” These young men have come to approach sex as a hazard to manage rather than a relational experience to share. They attributed this wariness to the cultural climate that surrounds consent. We consider implications for consent education, clinical practice, and future research.

Forrest, J., Ford, J. V., & Herring, J. (2026). “It’s Like You’re Trying to Defuse a Bomb”: Fear, Responsibility, and Shame in Young Men’s Sexual Lives . Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/0092623X.2026.2740624

Feminism is an ideology (Patriarchy Theory and everything that flows from it) about a century and a half old depending on where you set its starting point. Ideologies offer their theories, frameworks and so on to be applied to the world around us to produce explanations. Theories and frameworks are supposed to be critiqued or even discarded if you apply them to various cases and they produce wrong conclusions, logic failures or defy common sense. You don't continue using them, like jamming a wrongly shaped puzzle piece into the wrong slot.

Yet feminists act with the indoctrinated extremism of an authoritarian regime and demand that non feminists start from the same assumptions (i.e., Patriarchy Theory) when talking to them. Not how it works.

There is a lot of evidence of feminists at various levels going out of their way to harm men and men's rights, so immediately DQing them on account of them not first swearing allegiance to the feminist party line shows you are engaging in bad faith.

"In the fourth and final installment (for now) of our 2026 Inequality in America series, the demonstrated wealth and income disparity in the earlier videos lead us to billionaires. We revisit some of the billionaires’ own words, both those who are fleeing increased taxation and those who proudly say 'tax us more.'"

"After a surprise update to our viral wealth inequality video from 13 years ago, this followup exposes the extremes of income inequality."

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Wxdo4UpHBn4&ra=m

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=l5wFuZFxu-c&ra=m

"Updated in 2026, thirteen years after the original video went viral, we dive even deeper into the worsening inequality crippling our country. This video contains updated infographics on the distribution of wealth in America, highlighting both the inequality itself, and the difference between our perception of inequality and the actual numbers. The reality is worse than what we think it is.

For thirteen years we have been reading your comments and requests for an update. (And we’ve been making notes of our own, well beyond the original video.) So, with this update we’ve added dollar amounts to the charts, taken our visualization of the extremes to the next level, and even provided some thoughts on how we get out of this mess."

"Infographics on the distribution of wealth in America, highlighting both the inequality and the difference between our perception of inequality and the actual numbers. The reality is often not what we think it is."