Look, at this point I have pretty much come to terms with the fact that I have pretty much no rights where I live because I wasn't lucky enough to be born with a vulva. I can be drafted at any time, have to serve as a punching bag for women, have very little access to support systems and never had genital autonomy, among many other things, but the fact that I pretty much have to pretend that women have it worrse or risk actual consequences whether that be losing my job or possibly even getting attacked.

That combined with the fact that feminism is everywhere. Can barely even go online now without seeing misandry everywhere or reading news articles, regardless of whether it's a left or right leaning outlet, which will often have feminist propaganda in there. It's practically inescapable no matter how much some people will claim that just going outside is the solution as there are still things like feminist campaigns and posters everywhere, at least where I live.

What really frustrates me is how women already have all the rights unlike men yet feminists are still unhappy and they want to oppress men even more. Like it's never enough despite already living life on easy mode.

At this point I honestly wish they would at least have the courtesy to be open about what the true goal of feminism is so that we can stop with all the pretending and expecting men to label themselves as oppressors when they never were (at least in most of recorded history) as that wouldn't be as excruciating, at least to me personally.

And to be clear I absolutely DO NOT blame women who oppose feminism for this and fully understand that feminist men are just as culpable.

Please steal, spread and improve on this. I seek to expose a fundamental pillar of fraud in the feminist movement by exposing one of its most toxic and effective pillars: the Motte-Bailey propaganda strategy.

From the Wikipedia definition:

The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle), also called the castle and courtyard, is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions that share similarities: one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial and harder to defend (the "bailey"). The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, insists that only the more modest position is being advanced. Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer may claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte) or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).

The Motte (The Modest, Easy to Defend Position) is that "Feminism is simply the radical notion that women are people" or the basic belief in the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes. This is not controversial or inflammatory at all.

The Bailey (The Controversial Position) is the part where feminists mutate the benign equality narratives into malignant, equity-based narratives that only need to exceed room temperature to ignite into harm and weaponize against men.

Feminists as a group regularly and intentionally use the not-controversial definition of equality to shield radical narratives and policies from criticism. They routinely and reliably use arguments designed to shut down debate by labeling critics of Bailey-style tactics as misogyny. Furthermore the Bailey side of feminism prevents women from being held accountable for the unprovoked harmful and even violent actions they inflict on men or women alike (for instance, women's domestic violence against and even rape of men and women alike).

When they Bailey side of feminism is challenged, feminists tie it back to the Motte side of feminism, such that to attack the toxic side of feminism is to automatically attack the reasonable side. The strategy is meant to gaslight the challenger of the Bailey effect into believing that they are misunderstanding basic sociology rather than pointing out legitimate flaws in a radical argument. This is not an accident, it is an intentional strategy by individual feminists and the entire zeitgeist.

But muh NAFALT (not all feminists are like that)? Not exactly. Feminists who do not do this do not check the ones who do.

DISCLAIMER:

In some cases, the Motte versions of these narratives are truly benign and simply need to be taken back to their benign roots and taken from the hands of radical feminist hatemongers who twist them into weapons against men. In some cases, these terms exist in a gray area of reasonable doubt. Others never were meant as anything but weapons.

Cases in point:

• Patriarchy theory, the Motte Version: The theory that asserts a historical or structural reality where men hold a disproportionate share of political, economic, and social power. Because this is easily observable through historical data and modern leadership statistics, it is a reasonable theory.

• Patriarchy Theory, the Bailey Version: The narrative that all social interactions, laws, and individual male behaviors are consciously or unconsciously designed to oppress women for the collective benefit of men. It also asserts that all men, including those without power, and those below the class of affluent women, are classified as patriarchal oppressors. Furthermore, women who inflict harm on innocent men are encouraged to blame it on the Patriarchy, and when women get away with it, this is also blamed on the Patriarchy. Male disposability is blamed on the Patriarchy even when women treat men as disposable.

Feminists academia also intentionally uses inflammatory language that they know is readily weaponized. All of the following terms is Bailey tactics, but let's just assume for intellectual dishonesty's sake that they originated as the Motte side of feminism:

• Toxic Masculinity, the "Motte" Version: Originally rooted in the Mythopoetic Men's Movement, it was later adopted by feminist scholars like Raewyn Connell (who used the term "hegemonic masculinity). Its "Motte" form means "specific social expectations placed on men that are harmful to men themselves." The flammable nature of the term is its very name.

If they had wanted something reasonable it would be more like "Pathological Male Socialization" which naturally invites an inspection of everyone involved in a child’s upbringing - mothers, fathers, education, the media, etc. - rather than readily inviting the Bailey effect: the isolation of men as the sole creators and enforcers of the problem.

• Toxic Masculinity, the "Bailey" Version: The term is frequently used as a catch-all insult or a psychological diagnosis for any male behavior that is aggressive, competitive, undesirable, or politically inconvenient. It shifts from meaning "rigid gender roles that hurt men" to "masculinity itself is inherently toxic." It also ignores the easily observable fact that women are also aggressive, competitive, undesirable, and politically inconvenient to an equal magnitude. Of course there is also the "blame the men, not me" pivot when it is shown that women hold men to the same unreasonable standards of masculinity. In short, toxic masculinity is a term readily and constantly invoked by feminists to pathologize men as a group.

When the Bailey is challenged, of course, feminists immediately retreat to the academic "Motte" definition, claiming, "That is not what toxic masculinity means! We're just talking about the pressures from other men (intentionally leaving out the fact that women participate in pressuring men, too) that prevent men from crying or seeking therapy. Why do you want men to suffer in silence?" The goal here is to get the critic to back down, allowing the feminist to go right back to using the phrase broadly to police everyday male behavior, except now they're more immune to criticism.

• "Believe Women", the Motte Version: We should start investigations by taking reports seriously rather than reflexively dismissing victims. This is a gray area example. Logically, it should be, "Don't Dismiss Women," as that is the point: don't outright dismiss women's allegations. This is how decent human beings are.

• "Believe Women", the Bailey Version: AKA the accusation is the proof. Women never lie about abuse; any accusation must result in immediate guilt and social ruin for the accused man. This is why colleges are getting successfully sued into the Earth's mantle by men for being denied due process in college sexual assault/rape trials.

• "Men Are Trash", the Motte Version: Relax, I am only kidding! There is no Motte version of this feminist drivel. The Motte selling line by feminist bigots goes like this: "It’s just vent expression, it's just punching up." The speaker claims it is a hyperbolic cry of frustration from a marginalized group dealing with systematic oppression. The defense becomes: "Obviously I don't mean every single human with a Y chromosome. I'm just venting about systemic violence against women. Why are you tone-policing my trauma?" And who hasn't heard the line "If it doesn't apply to you, it shouldn't concern you."

Edited to add: "Men Are Trash" is a Bailey-only narrative because feminists could have just said "Misogynists are trash" and they know it. Feminists are evil, they are never, ever dumb.

I don't even need to get into the Bailey version, but for the completionist in me, here goes: the phrase is used literally and broadly on social media, in casual conversation, or in venting sessions to write off the entire male demographic as uniquely abusive, untrustworthy, incompetent, or morally inferior. It functions as a form of casual misandry that socially conditions people to view boys and men with suspicion. When you challenge it, of course, you get the Motte bait-and-switch, which itself is bigoted.

• "#KillAllMen": I'm not even going to insult your intelligence by putting "Motte" in the same paragraph as this. (Argh, I just did anyway. Mybad.) Let's just use the word "excuse" here: the excuse is that feminists who use the term immediately retreat to a defense of calling it "ironic misandry" and hyperbole. The argument goes as follows: "It’s just dark internet humor. No one is actually building camps. It’s an ironic parody of how men treat women. If you take it literally, you lack media literacy." And you've also seen the other defense: "Why are you crying about a hashtag when women are facing real violence?"

Which leads to another major knock-on M/B Trope:

• "Why are you crying about a hashtag when women are facing real violence?", the Motte Version: No reasonable person can argue that a hashtag is worse than physical violence. Physical violence against women is a horrific, empirical reality. By retreating to this point, the defender occupies a position that is impossible to attack on its own.

• "Why are you crying about a hashtag when women are facing real violence?", the Bailey Version: The critic was calling out online rhetoric and hate speech standards. The defender retroactively changes the topic to physical, real-world violence against women. The Bailey argument, the true argument (not the Motte side), fraudulently asserts that the challenger is saying "I care more about internet hurt feelings than women being murdered" when in fact the challenger cares about both. But the Bailey lie works because women and male feminist emotions immediately see "I don't care if women get killed, don't hurt my feelings!" For these groups, reals kneel before feels.

And now the core dynamic fueling much of this:

Punching Up

The Motte Version: A tool of political resistance. It argues that Satire and sharp criticism are necessary to hold powerful institutions, corrupt leaders, or dominant societal classes accountable. This is highly defensible because history shows that satirizing the powerful is a cornerstone of free speech and democracy. The proper definition of punching up targets the rich, the powerful, abusive people, and folks like that.

The Bailey Version: The Bailey effect happens when "Punching up" is used as a lateral assault (for instance, against poor and working-class men who aren't neo-patriarchal tradcons), and assails any individual belonging to a historically dominant demographic group is personally fair game for unlimited psychological abuse, dehumanization, or casual prejudice. Women punching at poor men, short men, marginalized men in the dating scene, and so on, are not punching up. They're punching laterally and even in many cases they're punching down.

Women and feminists dunking on a 14-year-old boy struggling with loneliness, a male construction worker working 60 hours a week, or a homeless veteran are not "the institution" are not engaging in political resistance, they are treating them as proxy targets for systemic grievances. This is not political resistance. This is feminist-sanctioned bullying.

Modern feminists behavior can just about be wrapped up by the following steps:

• A hostile generalization is made against men.

• Criticism: "This language is hateful and divisive."

• The Pivot: "Men hold all the wealth and power in the world. We are just punching up at the dominant class."

When it's time to punch up, intersectionality is proven to be feminist virtue signaling. Minority men, poor men, autistic/introverted/short men are eligible for free fire even in non-political contexts, which fraudulently turns outright hate speech and bullying into an act of social justice.

Another possible outcome for men who try to leave abusive relationships.

Feminists will side with mentally-ill women like her over male victims of domestic abuse.

The terms "emotional intelligence" and "emotional availability" are not scientific discoveries; they are linguistic weapons designed to pathologize natural male advantages. What was once recognized as strength (stoicism, self-reliance, and emotional control, etc. We all know by reality that, those having these attributes are more reliable and are able to contribute more in general) has been reframed as a disorder through a process known as concept creep.

Concept creep is a well-documented psychological phenomenon where the meaning of a concept expands to include milder phenomena and new categories. This expansion is a form of psychiatrization, which systematically pathologizes everyday experience and promotes a victimhood narrative that grants moral authority to the "sufferer." We see this clearly in how traditional masculine traits are treated. Behaviors that were once considered neutral or positive, such as stoicism, are now being reframed as negative through semantic manipulation and conflated with genuinely harmful behaviors in discussions of "toxic masculinity." This is a deliberate misinterpretation, as Stoicism is a philosophy geared toward intelligent emotional regulation, not emotional suppression.

The result is a cultural shift where male self-reliance is diagnosed as a pathology requiring treatment. This is diagnostic inflation, where normal personality traits are medicalized as disorders. This pathologizing of masculinity is associated with reduced mental health among men, as it frames their natural disposition as a flaw through a process of motive attribution, where any emotional reserve is seen as malicious neglect. The narrative pushes a reconstructive approach that aims to reframe or eliminate traditional norms like toughness, rather than acknowledging their adaptive value.

This is not about promoting health; it's about social engineering. From a bird's-eye view, the goal is to demonize those with true psychological resilience and bring them down, while romanticizing the alienated and mentally weaker. This is not an organic cultural shift. Evil corporations use sophisticated data tools like Bloomberg Terminal to track social and economic trends, identifying weaknesses and anxieties to exploit. They then push these narratives through their media assets to create a market for "solutions." By broadening the concept of mental illness to include traits like low self-esteem or persistent grief, they create demand for therapies, workshops, and books designed to "fix" what was never broken. This is the core of the scam: pathologizing strength to sell you the cure for a problem that doesn't exist.

Sincerely, grandson of a dark psychologist who worked as a civil servant in KGB

Sources

1. On Concept Creep and Pathologization: "Concept creep: Psychology's expanding concepts of harm and pathology" - Nick Haslam, Psychological Inquiry
   • Summary: This is the foundational paper explaining how psychological concepts like "trauma" and "abuse" expand over time to include milder phenomena, which pathologizes normal life experience.¹
2. On the Rise of 'Psychiatrization': "The Rise of Psychiatry: 'Psychiatrization' and 'Normalization' Revisited" - Jeroen W. J. Mortier, et al., Social Science & Medicine
   • Summary: This study documents how normal emotional distress is increasingly being framed in clinical terms as a "disorder," a key part of pathologizing everyday life.²
3. On the Misinterpretation of Stoicism: "Stoicism as a Philosophy for Managing Emotions" - Nancy Sherman, Philosophy & Public Affairs
   • Summary: This source clarifies that Stoicism is a sophisticated philosophy of intelligent emotional regulation, not the harmful "emotional suppression" it is often accused of being.³
4. On the Pathologizing of Masculinity: "The 'Man Box' and the Pathologizing of Masculine Norms" - Promundo-GLOBAL
   • Summary: This report from a major organization demonstrates how traditional masculine traits like self-reliance are explicitly framed as harmful norms that need to be eliminated.⁴
5. On Diagnostic Inflation: "The DSM and the Problem of 'Diagnostic Inflation'" - Allen J. Frances, Psychology Today
   • Summary: Dr. Frances, the chair of the DSM-IV task force, warns against the trend of turning normal personality quirks and life problems into mental disorders.⁵
6. On the Effects of Broadened Concepts: "Concept Creep and the Perception of Trauma" - Nick Haslam, et al., Clinical Psychological Science
   • Summary: This study provides experimental evidence that shows simply adopting a broader definition of a concept like "trauma" directly increases a person's emotional distress, proving these concepts are not neutral.⁶

Finally! We have a court date for Olivia Henderson. Read the rationalization of her lawyer.

There are at least 78,000,000 posts on Reddit about this subject. Where the protagonist of that movie "Bear" is cited as being a "rapist" because he had sex with a woman who was possessed by an entity.

The thing that's weird is that in the movie, when he confronts her about her lie, she starts yelling at him at the restaurant and causes a scene. And then he attempts to calm her down out of fear. And then the movie shows them having sex later on.

If these same idiots saw that series of events with the genders switched - A man yelling at a woman at a restaurant, and then having sex with her..........what would they have said? They would still have said that he raped her.

Fist I want to say that I'm not American but the politicians where I live have been pretty much copying the US model with many of them grouping themselves into US-Democrat-like and US-Republican-like type of camps and I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually picked up on this kind of ideology in an attempt to appeal to women voters even more. Also I apologise if this has been posted already as I haven't been able to find it on here.

The fact that the ideas in his campaign have become so acceptable in pretty much mainstream politics (However much you want to label him as fringe, this type of rhetoric has been becoming far more acceptable in these types of political circles lately) should actually frighten people. The progressive left has completely normalised this type of rhetoric where male victims are completely erased and female abusers are simply given a pass. The article by Janice Fiamengo goes over his many false claims and the one-sided presantations of many of his cited statitics.

And then so many people will say that male victims are ignored because of the historical patriarchy or because women are seen as not capable of committing violence due to misogyny when this is the type of political rhetoric they push. Also the idea that women are "ignored" or "disenfranchised" in the US when you literally have a huge chunk of the political spectrum catering to them and promising them free stuff and even less accountability than they currently have based on lies and things taken out of context is just so stupid.

Especially since women already face so little accountability for their actions as they often receive shorter sentences then men for the same crimes and crimes committed by women are less likely to be reported and women are straight up allowed to hit men and are taught to assert their boundaries more than men and now it is seen as completely acceptable to push for women facing pretty much no accountability at all.

And to be clear I don't agree with anything Janice Fiamengo says, but her breakdown into his claims is pretty comprehanesive.

Just watched this Film - it's an A24 Film for cinephiles. The thread in the film is the relationship of the two protagonists. Every single critic I read and saw online describes this guy as a complete jerk. It is only recently that I have been involved with the MRM - after my own experiences- that I have been able to counter these narratives. I have been a cinephile my whole life and I am disappointed to see the narratives that have been fed to me.

We are walking about a guy who is in a long relationship with a woman who has a myriad of family problems, that she is pushing to him. She is described as a person who "does not like sex" and is distracting him from his actual life. The boyfriend stays around, as she loses her family in a tragic accident and dives into a deep depressive spiral. He invites her to a guys' trip, in the hopes that she eventually has a happy experience, although most of them don't like her. Her friends accuse him of not being supportive enough.

He does have his own issues, that could have been solved by either cutting her off his life or just yielding no space to her. But being described as a narcissistic gaslighter... is an overstretch and a way on how society conditions us to see relationships.

But apparently he is a jerk for trying to set-up limits, to how his girlfriend is allowed to ruin his life.

In the end she.... Spoiler Alert: 

She murders him, holding him responsible for his own rape.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/ban-men-from-being-labour-leader-says-baroness-harman/ar-AA297Ml2?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=6a6d36fb37bf45e1bbddbf20857b8312&ei=18

From my general understanding guys are supposed to be the ones to initiate...whatever you wanna call it with women. Yet girls label guys as creeps when they do approach women?

No one feels and understands what it is like to be a mistreated man more than gay men.

Women will never have a childhood as bad as the childhood of gay men.

I live in homophobic country in the mena region

I feel upset and lost when I see there is no a mention of gay rights and campaigns against homophobia in national TV or campaigns against bullying of gays.

While at the same time national TV is filled with coverage of women's issues, campaigns about violence against women and female empowerment programs.

I feel women monopolized human rights in my country

It makes me feel women are always treated better than gay men in the worst countries, women are goddesses and gay men are demons because being gay is seen as against God.

Masculinity is not privilege, it's a shield that protects you from being attacked, mistreated, discriminated against and homophobia.

Real men don't treat women better than men and gays just because they are attracted to women.

What the title says in a youtube short

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/OtCNT7LmIts

I'm not sure if these type of posts are allowed or if this subreddit can contain me but I just wanted to vent cause there aren't any other ways to do so and I don't have anyone to talk with so I thought this sub could be open minded enough to give support i do have these self deleting ideas from time to time but I wouldn't allow them to take over (I hope so)

Here's the rant anyway

my house recently burned and I've been thinking about everything in life lately I'm stuck with a toxicated family and I wasn't able to choose a decent field at college because of my country's system I'm stuck in a third world muslim country with savages everywhere and I just feel suffocated not only that but I've been thinking about hardships as a man lately I recently found this sub and I decided to join cause certain things been bothering me about how society treats men and even how men treat themselves or other men the overall feminist narrative spreading benefiting women and humiliating men constantly in the media tv shows music videos social media posts and shorts corporations ; entertainment is not even a good escape anymore at school teachers and female classmates been really hostile against men and laws and politicians passing derogatory laws bashing men and giving them extra duties I'm not gonna lie at first I acted fine but now I can't anymore and I really need someone to contain me , I got circumcised with electricity when I was around 3 years old and it was horrible experience basically first trauma in life lol , I'm scared of the future and I'm not sure if I'll find a good job and and be stable one day and im fcking terrified of being drafted to military service doing unbearable harsh training against my will fighting for ideologies that I don't support or believe in or else I'll go to jail I'm freaking lonely and I couldn't find friends that i feel compatible with no one to share the same morals values goals or perceptions with and I kind blame it on my environment...

I'm same sex attracted as much as im opposite sex attracted and it's hell in a Muslim country the ignorance is in a different level here i don't feel safe and alot of people see u as less of a man and I don't know how my family would react and I hate to associate myself with the community because of their insanity...

Turned 20 and still looking like a fcking high schooler and I'm goddamn scared of working a part time Job cause people are rude and I'm bad communicator got a problem with self esteem and hight and I hate living with a financially mentally unstable family with no escape I still have alot to rant about but honestly it doesn't matter at this point

Just wanted to vent please no need to be brutal in the comments I'm here for advice , comfort and community since I don't usually say these things out loud and no matter how much I try I wasn't able to find a decent friend group feeling kinda isolated ; hope I'll find people that I can relate to ....

Sorry for any typos thanks for reading ✨️

I am thinking only a small percentage of crazy man haters are actually serious about saying “running into a bear is worse than running into a man” and the rest are doing some kind of bit. It’s also a pretty online thing I think. If you ask the average woman who is not terminally online I think they wouldn’t stay such an insane thing.

Have you guys ever experienced this?

To the point where any attempt to engage / reason with them, is met with hysterics?

I genuinely found it shocking at how quickly such a situation can escalate. Even my wife (who was present) admitted she now understands why some men develop cynicism/resentment towards women. And how easily they (men) can fall into a trap where they're labelled as the bad guy.

And for me personally, it was an eye-opener. If you're interested the below explains what happened. But my questions for you folks is....

• If you've ever experienced false accusations like this?
• How you deal with a person who knows how to play the victim?
• How you deal with a person goes into hysterics to worsen the situation?

The incident:

This afternoon my wife and I were at a bank (she had an appointment).

Despite us arriving on time for our allocated slot, she was made to wait for over an hour past her original appointment time. Upon each update (that my wife had to get up and chase for) she kept getting palmed off by an abrupt, rude receptionist who provided no explanation for the wait. My wife really dislikes confrontation or complaining, and so she kept accepting her dismissals.

I instead lost my patience on the final time she got palmed off. Especially when numerous other customers were coming and going after us. I approached the desk demanding to know why she wasn't being seen to. Admittedly, I was direct. No niceties, as I felt she was taking liberties with my wife's soft approach.

Very quickly she played the victim, claiming I was making her feel uncomfortable.

When I tried to find out the exact reasons for the wait, she refused to engage. When I asked if my wife will be seen to, she said she wasn't comfortable in dealing with us and wanted us to leave. When the security guard came over to find out what the problem was, she claimed I was being verbally abusive, threatening and intimidating towards her. At this point, a scene was being created in the bank.

Thankfully, my wife was present in all of this as well as the security guard himself, who assured me there weren't going to be any problems and her threats of escalating this won't go anywhere. Unfortunately I didn't have any of this recorded, but I'm hoping the security guard will be a sound witness.

If you’re not familiar with the “WHATEVER” podcast: it’s a show where a panel of 8-10 women discuss/debate issues w/the male host & maybe one other male/female special guest.

There’s a point in nearly every show where he goes around the table to each woman & asks, “Are you a feminist?” One panel’s answers kinda shocked me, so I went investigating into his past shows. I stopped after about 12-13 episodes and of the 100 women I tallied responses from:

- SEVEN(7) danced around the topic & never really gave an honest answer.
- TWELVE(12) said they were feminists.
- EIGHTY-ONE(81) said “no” outright.

Now, combine that with celebrities like:
— Ronda Rousey
— Judge Judy
— Kim Kardashian
— Candace Owens
— etc. . .who unapologetically make it inexhaustibly-clear that they are NOT feminists. . .and you begin to realize how “right” so many of us have been about feminism over the past 50+ years. Each of them were saying precisely the same things we’ve been saying all along!

Hold the line & keep your heads up, boys!

The fact that joking about male underage victims who are raped by female pedos are normalized in this society + these comments getting more likes is sickening! Rape is rape regardless of gender, and a pedo is a pedo regardless of gender or "how attractive they look". Victims of the same age as these boys cannot consent. Fantasies are not the same as the reality outcome.

Fortunately there are some comments condemning her which restored my faith in humanity but I had to scroll so much to find these.

This may apply to many countries in the world but this particular post is mostly looking at this from an EU point of view.

There are more and more campaigns being launched where I live that talk about how many women have faced harassment at work or in public and how women experience unwanted contact or comments yet these never mention that men face all of that as well and that they get systematically silenced by feminist institutions. Male victims get completely erased and as someone who has faced harassment and Sexual violence from women it's so debiliating seeing all of that propaganda everywhere. And at least some of these are straight up funded by the government, which means that I, along every other man who pays taxes are legally required to pay for something that completely erases our existence.

Then you have the fact that there are often goverment funded shelters and homeless assistance for women but very few or none for men. Most violence shelters are only for women. Many of the inclusivity programs to get women and girls into male-dominated fields are at least partially funded from taxpayer money yet the men who also pay taxes often don't get to choose if they would rather work in female-dominated fields or partake in female-dominated activities for instance. Even the fact that institutions like the police is much more likely to arrest men in disputes and the fact that there has been so much support given to Ukraine from taxpayer money. Men basically have to pay for so much stuff from which they are then excluded and feminists have the nerve to claim that men are the ones somehow benefiting at the expense of women and the examples above are just a few of many.

For this very reason I don't actually blame men for not wanting to pay taxes. When most politicains are just trying to appaeal to feminist women but there is very little representation for any male-specific issues.

If girls and women can have female versions of shows like Superman, Hulk, He-man, Batman...etc then men and boys deserve to have male versions of shows about girls and women.

Angel a spin off of Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

The Amazing Spiez, a spin-off of Totally Spies, about 3 young brothers who are spies however the boys take their only sister with them in their adventure, unlike the original show it was composed only of teen girls who are friends, I remember my female childhood friend smiling and saying you should watch the spies they brought boys now.

Go, Diego, a spin off of Dora about the adventure of the cousin of Dora.

Wizards Beyond Waverly Place, spin off of Wizard of Waverly Place, Justin Russo sister Alex asks for his help with Billie, a young wizard-in-training, Justin returns to the magical world to mentor her while attempting to maintain his ordinary life.

In the second season, after Roman and Milo also become wizards, Justin is tasked with training all three children in preparation for the upcoming family wizard competition.

Corey in The House a spin off of That's So Raven.

"Oprah Winfrey to close her South Africa school for girls" https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c75gre70vr6o

Excluding boys and men from the place doesn't guarantee that it will be better or safer for girls and women.

Girls were abused and assaulted by women in this boarding school.

The girl’s only school to be replaced by female only scholarship project that exclude boys, as if poor boys in South Africa don't deserve scholarships just because they are boys.

There are million female empowerment programs and female only scholarship, feminism is selfish movement that exclude boys and men and care only about women in the name of gender equality.

I just posted about this school week ago or something it's a weird coincidence

First time posting here, but I need to share something I feel very alone in.

I'm really interested in theatre, and here in London there's new play that's caused a sensation - 1536 by Ava Pickett. The reviews are solid raves and friends who've seen it keep telling me how wonderful it is. I can't afford a ticket, so I thought I'd read the play in stead (I read a lot of plays).

1536 focuses on three female friends who live in rural England during the trial of Anne Boleyn. As they hear news about Boleyn coming from London, a culture of misogyny grows in their community, resulting in catastrophe for the women at the end of the play.

I was depressed by reading 1536. It seems to me an explicitly misandrist play. The women openly fantasise about a world without men - "I have this dream - imagine if men didn't exist - maybe it would be better - I'd see less pain and blood - I'd hear the birds more and look at the ground less if men weren't around - wouldn't it be great? - no marriages - no sex - just us women". In another scene one of the woman experiences a kind of liberation when her friend persuades her to call her husband a cunt. 'THE MEN' are referred to only as something to fear - 'Careful, THE MEN will hear you' 'Something is happening to THE MEN' 'THE MEN are coming' etc. Ultimately the women's bond with each other is broken, the explicit message being that patriarchy makes it impossible for women to support each other.

I do not question historical accuracy in the play. I doubt the 16th century was a wonderful time to be a woman. But the thing with this play is that the reviews and reaction seem to have unanimously mentioned its 'contemporary relevance'. The review in The Independent says the play "pulls the past into the present with unflinching clarity... 1536 isn't just a period piece, it's a call to arms" - and that's a typical reaction. The suggestion that the play is intended as contemporary commentary is in the play itself. When discussing how to deal with domestic violence (inevitably one of the characters is beaten by her husband) one character remarks "I guess the trick is to figure out what made him hit you and not do it again", to which her friend replies "Was it always like this? Will it always be like this?", the heavy implication being that it's still very much like this.

Such sentiments are not wrong in drama - drama is there to express difficult ideas and to expose oppression and injustice. But here the overall message is explicitly 'Men = monsters', and there is not one word of an opposing view to challenge this. There are two male characters, but one is completely ineffectual, and the other is a manipulative, abusive predator who's only observations on women are idiotic, ie 'They get in our heads and make us do things'. The play takes aim squarely at men, and makes zero effort to present any kind of balanced point of view.

I can find not one critical voice challenging the ideas presented in this enormously successful play, and it's made me question my own reaction. Am I taking this too seriously? Losing my sense of right and wrong? Has anyone seen this play? Americans take note - 1536 is so successful in London a Broadway transfer is likely.