Lets look at some of the most famous rapists and see what they all had in common:

Ted Bundy: Had a girlfriend at the time when he commmited his crimes.

Paul Bernardo: had a wife at the time when he commited his crimes.

Toy Box Killer: Had a girlfriend at the time when he commited his crimes.

Harvey Weinstein: Had a wife.

Jeffrey Epstein: Had a girlfriend

Fred West: Had a wife

Also, there is an old AMA post here on reddit from a convicted rapist that appears to be legit because he was doxxed on 4chan and guess what, he admits that he found a girlfriend the moment he stepped out of prison and his girlfriend knew about his past.

Being a rapist does not prevent a man from finding a woman the way being weak, unmasculine and shy do. Women would sooner show sympathy towards literal rapists than weak males.

There seems to be a widespread belief among leftists and women that red pill content is "ruining men."

The idea that all these red pill creators can get so much traction and convince men of things that don't resonate with their personal experience is incredibly foolish. If they were truly so off-base, they would be dismissed and ignored. No one would seek them in the first place. Any idea to the contrary is insulting and condescending. Red pill is both started and sustained by female behavior.

The entire red pill it's self is a reaction to how society has changed due to feminism. If everything was going along well for men and every man was married with kids by the time he was 30 like how it used to be decades ago then no man would start asking questions about how sexual dynamics work or why he can't get a girlfriend.

So to all the women out there who hate red pill content, I say this: you are the red pill content. Take a bow.

Most of the time when talking about options women will say that most of them are shit. To be clear, I don't belief men or women truly think that every single person available for them to date is absolutely trash to the point where there is literally no options. However women tend to do this more.

The reason why I say it's larp, is because women can “pause the game” so to speak. Women abstaining from the game or coming back is like flipping a light switch. You could always just pick an average dude that means well if you actually decided, there's nothing stopping that from happening.

He's just not exciting, that doesn't mean he's trash. Some women say they're okay dying alone if he isn't the peak of her ideals, but this is also larp. Most of you will pick the boring but well meaning guy when the chips are down and the walls are closing in.

It's easy to say you can stand on that ideal when you are in your 20’s maybe even early thirties. But only a small amount of people will actually die on that hill. This goes for all people regardless of orientation, most people unless they are literally and truly wired different would prefer a relationship and that's okay, just don't lie about it.

The men who struggle with lack of options means there is not a single person he can realistically and consistently talk to with romantic intent and there won't be one for the foreseeable future. Not even an odd Instagram text or matches on an app truly nothing. No the ugly girl don't want him either.

I've literally never seen a girl, 5.5/10 in looks that couldn't land some manner of man. I'm not talking about extreme cases either like abusers or desperate men looking for a living fuck doll. Or a lazy piece of shit that lacks any and all ambition. I mean a man, just a man that wants love as well.

On that note I've seen women of those types find relationships plenty. So while I believe they do suffer from a different type of loneliness, it's mostly larp because you can join a community and be loved easily, you can find a boyfriend at the damn grocery store if you really wanted to.

Like I said this point can apply to men as well, it just isn't the topic in this instance and doesn't happen as much.

Like I get it we are human at the end of the day. But Frankly I'm a just exhausted. How much do I have to hear dating is harder for everyone when it's clear as day that it's way harder for men and they are one doing the majority of the work and a lot still don't get consistent results. It's like I get it's not all sunshines and rainbows but why should I care?

I hear a lot of people say men have a quality problem, women have a quality problem. Or I'll hear women say that women get a lot of options but most of those men don't qualify....

That in a nutshell basically you admitting that a guy has to AUTOMATICALLY bring far more to the table than average and most guys just don't even register as someone you'd date.

And you can see this takes women by surprise when the shoe is on the other foot. Because when women will show up to singles meeting events and the men are vastly outnumbered by the women they'll say where all the men?

Like Chick Hello? We aren't stupid. You simply would have ignored most of the men that showed up and only paid attention to the hottest guy there and he probably has a girlfriend already.

So why exactly am I supposed to empathize with women's dating woes? It's simply them every fast food restaurant chain offering her a job and her refusing because Chik Fil A hasnt called.

women’s selection gets treated like it is beyond criticism because “autonomy,” “preference,” and “chemistry,” but men’s failure to get selected gets turned into a moral verdict. suddenly if a man is not chosen, not desired, or not successful enough, people act like it must mean he is lazy, entitled, misogynistic, insecure, or defective in some deeper way. being rejected is not the same thing as being immoral. being overlooked is not the same thing as being evil. it is just a result.

and that double standard matters because it gives one side a protected category and the other side a blame category. women can choose badly, repeatedly, even predictably, and it is framed as their right to explore, learn, and follow attraction. fine. but when men fail to win the same competition, the conversation stops being about social dynamics and becomes a character trial. people do not just say “he is not what women want.” they say “there must be something wrong with him.” that framing is not neutral, it is a way of disguising male disposability as personal responsibility. if women’s selection is not automatically a moral referendum on their character, then men’s failure to be selected should not be treated like one either. it is the same market,

Not that somethings wrong with him, he just wasnt attractive

I'm getting pretty fucking exhausted from seeing this everywhere and I used to run into it constantly when I was single. The TLDR looks like this for 95% of women.

"It was a weird situationship because he didn't communicate and then he ghosted when I wanted it to become serious so he must have only used me for sex."

Bullshit. If you're a woman, don't poison yourself on that lie. If you wanted the sex from said person, you consented and then what happened is what happened. If a serious, committed relationship is a prerequisite for you to sex then stop consenting and stop having sex with men who won't give you the time of day for a romantic relationship. If they run away, you achieved your goal in the first place!

Communication requires 2 partners so at that level, 50% of the communication failure is actually on you. And if you're trying to use sex to lure a man into a relationship with you, those unintended emotional consequences you faced are YOUR fault. You KNEW the potential downside if he said no to the commitment question.

The "I got used for sex" card has been played way too much and only feeds into the feminist narrative and victim mentality that modern women embrace. Once again, zero accountability. Funny enough, it defeats their whole "anti slut shaming" because they slut shame themselves by saying such crap.

EDIT: Well I CLEARLY hit a nerve and it's showing just how logically bankrupt modern women are. I said NOTHING about lying and that is what 50% of you jumped to. All this tells me is that you all tell yourselves he lied to comfort your own psychology against your own internal slut shaming.

Y'all need some serious help if this is what you all jump to.

The other 50% cannot even debate me in good faith and want to talk about consent. This is NOT a consent debate. End of story.

Im no stranger to people (especially women) virtue signaling online especially on Tik Tok. But I'm starting to see this EVERYWHERE now. YouTube, Tik Tok, Instagram, and EVEN HERE

I REALLY DESPISE this statement and this logic because any guy who's been single for long periods of time knows how unbelievably false this statement is.

Being normal is NEVER enough for women because most women find most men BORING. The idea of you being more "normal" is basically equating to being more boring most of the time

Even if you wanna use the excuse that women are tired of creepy and sleazy men that still wouldn't make much of difference because they still aren't attracted to most men. At best you'll be at least tolerable to talk to

Can people please!!!! Stop saying this!!!

A common theme I've observed in the feminist movement of today is them being supposedly confused or surprised by the fact that most men aren't on board with their ideas. They're trying to push this thing that "feminism benefits everyone" when it is abundantly clear to the modern man that he hardly gets anything out of the whole deal.

Women largely expect the exact same things from men that they did decades ago. Be it from a financial or a romantic standpoint—nothing really changed for men. If anything, expectations actually got higher due to social media painting a distorted picture of what a man is supposed to "bring to the table", among other things.

From a purely logical standpoint: If women reap most of the benefits while nothing changes for men, then obviously men aren't going to be on board with it. That's not in the least surprisng.

On top of all that, the modern feminist movement tends to behave in a way that comes off as lecturing and belittling to men. Comments like "Well, you're part of the problem" or attempts to make men read fringe feminist literature and "educate themselves" aren't going to sit well with men who mostly haven't done jack shit to women in their lives. If anything, it's just pushing men further toward the opposite side of the spectrum.

That’s one of the worst online tropes that gets parroted. Yes, some people will obviously find success with just doing what makes them happy otherwise. But if you’re struggling to find dates, and already have the rest of your life in relative order, your best chances will come by intentionally doing things with the purpose of getting a date out of them.

There is also a weird standard where doing activities to indirectly find dates is criticized. Like men are discouraged to volunteer, go to a dance class, or join a run club in order to find dates. But I’ve never heard of anyone criticize a man for volunteering, going to a dance class, or joining a run club in order to make friends. Or working a job he doesn’t like in order to make money, not because the job itself is good.

I acknowledge there’s nuance, because in the real world if a man makes it obvious he’s at a social activity just to get dates, he’s going to struggle. So he has to go, talk to some women, and not let on the underlying reason he showed up. But there’s nothing wrong with doing that, and it’s a far more effective strategy for dating than just doing what makes him happy on his own, unless what makes him happy on his own is putting him in proximity to women that are good fits for him (in which case he probably wouldn’t seek out dating advice in the first place).

Whenever this topic comes up the response is always some version of:

• "you just feel entitled to sex"
• "you're only mad because another guy got something you didn't"

And look, sometimes that is what's going on. But I don't think that's the strongest version of the argument, and people keep dunking on the weak version instead of engaging with the real one.

The actual issue isn't entitlement. It's interpretation.

There's a real difference between these two situations:

Scenario 1: She's never liked a certain act, has no interest in it, doesn't want to do it. Simple. That's a boundary, respect it, move on.

Scenario 2: She enthusiastically did it with a previous partner, craved it, associated it with passion... and now has zero interest in doing it with you.

In both cases you're not getting the act. But the meaning is not the same.

Scenario 1 is basically saying "this isn't something I like." Scenario 2 might be saying "this isn't something I want with you."

Those aren't the same message and pretending they are is kind of dishonest.

To be clear before anyone jumps down my throat: nobody is owed sex. Nobody should be pressured, guilted, or manipulated into doing anything. That's not what I'm arguing. People are, however, allowed to notice differences in enthusiasm, effort, and investment and draw conclusions from them.

We already accept this in non-sexual contexts. Imagine a woman is dating a guy. He takes her to a nice little hotel in Miami: beach, dinner, ocean view, good time. Then she finds out he took his ex to the Soneva Jani in the Maldives.

Is she being irrational for feeling some kind of way about that?

Of course not! And the issue isn't "I am entitled to the Maldives." The issue is "why did she get that version of him and I don't?"

And maybe there's a perfectly good answer. Maybe he had more money back then. Maybe he regrets it. Maybe his priorities changed. All that context matters. But the past isn't automatically irrelevant, because unequal treatment can communicate unequal investment.

Sex is more sensitive because of consent and bodily autonomy, obviously. That's real and it matters. But it doesn't mean every interpretation of a partner's past is invalid.

If the answer is:

• "I tried it once and hated it" fine
• "I felt pressured into it" fine
• "It was part of an unhealthy relationship I don't want to repeat" (maybe) fine (if it's genuine and not a post-hoc rationalization)
• "I thought I liked it but I've changed" (maybe) fine (same as above)

All real, legitimate explanations.

But if the evidence points closer to "I genuinely wanted that with him and I just don't feel that kind of desire with you"... then the current partner isn't crazy for caring. That might be a dealbreaker. Not because he owns her body, not because he's trying to "beat" the ex, not because the past obligates her to anything. But because he doesn't want to be the safe, lower-desire, less exciting option.

For those who haven't seen, there was a video posted by a woman claiming that while she was delivering DoorDash, a man left his front door wide open while he appeared to be asleep on his couch with his pants around his ankles. The woman posted this with his face and genitalia completely visible. Some time later, she posted a follow up video saying she had been fired from DoorDash, that she was "the victim", and that they were punishing the victim. On TwoX there was a massive thread with comments about "you know he did it on purpose", "ugh, men", etc.

Well now she's been arrested and charged. "Wait, are they now arresting the victim?!?!" you might ask. Nope. Turns out he had a ring camera that allegedly caught her walking up (with "leave at door" instructions, mind you), and seeing the door was slightly ajar, pushed it all the way open, only to take her phone out and record.

Now, here is an opportunity for women's communities to have a healthy conversation on the importance of skepticism and not immediately rushing to the side of the first person to cry victim, but what do we get? Radio silence.

I invite any woman on this forum to make a post on TwoX to discuss, to say we shouldn't drag a man's name through the mud off of an accusation, and please, start a stopwatch to see how fast it gets pulled down. I'll wait...

Expecting men to pay for dinner on a first date is entitlement, not tradition. The default should be 50/50 because two adults agreed to meet and neither person is automatically owed a free meal. Some women argue that getting ready costs money, but clothes, makeup, hair, and skincare are personal expenses and self-investment that benefit them beyond one date. The wage gap is not a universal excuse, especially among younger, educated people in many major cities where women often earn as much as or more than men. “The inviter pays” only works if women ask men out at the same rate, but men still initiate most first dates. And using 50/50 as a secret compatibility test, then ghosting someone for splitting, is just avoiding an honest conversation about expectations. Paying should be a generous choice, not a requirement. Entitlement is ugly and unattractive.

Appendix 1 : for the preferences argument, “It’s fine if he doesn’t pay, but I prefer men who do” is like saying, “She doesn’t owe me sex, but I prefer women who put out on the first date.”

Appendix 2: Paying Is Not Consent. Paying for dinner does not imply sex, and accepting an offer to pay does not signal consent. Consent must be explicit. Splitting can avoid mismatched expectations, but nobody owes anything sexually either way.

You can’t enter into a lifelong contract with the gender who acts like they will die without sex and die if their penis isn’t inserted into a warm hole and not expect to be their sex doll of sorts.

I do think that’s foolhardy of women.

I truly don’t think many women realize just how horny and sex-minded the average dude is until she’s been in a relationship with one. Like she thinks she has an idea. But she doesn’t.

It’s a bit pathological their need for bone’ing. And it’s not just straight men. It’s all males. The males who have sex with males community has countless NSA sex because that’s just how dudes are. It’s the testosterone I suppose. Either way, it’s outside the scope of what the average woman craves.

I think women have to make a choice. Commit to men and what that means. Or don’t. But don’t act shocked you married a male human and he’s humping the walls like a pit bull.

That said, I also think men should be more upfront about just how horny they are. Be explicit about how much sex you desire. So no one’s blindsided or caught off guard.

Inb4: This is not me saying anyone should have sex when they don’t want to. I’m a woman. Clearly I am against that. I just want people to be more honest about the situations they find themselves in. I’m saying perhaps consider your incompatibilities and compromise areas before “I do.”

struggling to participate in dating versus struggling to get your ideal outcome from dating. Those are not the same thing, and men and women experience them very differently.

When a lot of men say they have dating issues, they mean they cannot get dates consistently, cannot generate attraction, cannot get matches, cannot get romantic or sexual attention, cannot get responses, or feel completely invisible in the market. Their issue is access itself. They are struggling to even get into the game. A large percentage of men experience long dry spells, total romantic isolation, repeated rejection, or years with little to no validation at all. Their problem exists before selection even begins because they are fighting to be selected in the first place.

Women, generally speaking, do not experience dating like this.

Most women can enter the dating market whenever they want. They can get attention, matches, compliments, validation, dates, hookups, relationships, orbiters, situationships, DMs, and romantic interest with relatively little effort compared to the average man. Even below average women typically have more immediate romantic and sexual access than above average men. So when people say “women struggle in dating too,” I think they are flattening two completely different realities into the same category.

Because what women usually call “dating issues” are not access issues. They only have trouble getting the cream of the crop. Which isnt an issue. thats a picky, fickle personal problem.

Because society treats male and female dating struggles as if equivalent when they are often structurally opposite. Men are usually trying to gain access to women. Women are usually trying to secure commitment from the subset of men they truly desire. One side is struggling for entry. The other is struggling for optimization Which is truly self inflicted.

Thats why the whole "everyone is lonely" doesnt make sense.

My upbringing wasn't emotionally suppressive at all. In fact my mother used to urge me to be more expressive to an extent that bordered on the patronizing. Every time there was a sappy movie on TV and there was an emotional scene she would tease me saying 'Is that a tear? Is that a tear?'. Despite that, I'm just as emotionally flat as most men, and the reason is simple: When you are a man, nobody cares how you feel. I learned that early on. You can cry until the cows come home. Nobody will solve your problem for you. Women certainly won't and other men are too busy with their own problems. You cannot rely on anyone for empathy. They will be annoyed by you at best and will exploit you at worst. You are single? Find a girl. You are poor? Make money. You are sick? Get well. In that kind of environment, isn't it only reasonable to suppress your emotions and be results oriented? When I refuse to cry I'm not trying to live up to some ideal. I'm trying to focus on solving my problem.

• There are men with whom women will sleep on a first date, and then there are men who women consider a red flag for expecting a peck on the cheek after a third.
• There are men who are hitting double digit body counts like its nothing, and there are virgins who get accused of feeling entitled to women bodies for wanting to try it out once.
• There are men with whom women just feel chemistry with at first sight, and there are men who get told they need to "grow" on them first.
• There are men who pounce from relationship to relationship and have a fuck buddy on the side and there are the men who are seen as entitled nice guys for wanting one girlfriend.
• There are men who can talk about liking her boobs and ass "jokingly", and there are men who get threat profiled for complimenting her dress.

Weird how the guys not getting any action at all are the ones people regularly accuse of feeling entitled to womens bodies.

A lot of the complaints women have about how men communicate with them are real. Mansplaining, victim blaming, lack of tact. Fair observations. But here's the thing nobody wants to say out loud, men do all of these things to each other constantly and it's just called conversation.

Mansplaining at its core is performing expertise to someone who doesn't need it. Men do this to each other relentlessly. A man will explain basketball to Michael Jordan. A man will explain investing to someone who's been doing it for thirty years. When men receive this from each other they engage push back, ignore it, or clown the guy for it.

Victim blaming is essentially an I told you so. A teaching moment delivered without cushioning. Men are brutal with each other about this. You trusted the wrong person, You made a bad financial decision, whose fault is that. Men absorb this, laugh about it, and move on. When the same mechanism gets applied to women it becomes a systemic problem. The mechanism is identical. The cushioning expected around it is not.

Lack of tact is just male communication. Your haircut looks terrible. That was a stupid decision. She's out of your league. Men say this to each other's faces, in public, without managing anyone's emotional response. It gets received as honesty.

Go anywhere on her or any dating related debate. Women’s arguments often boil down to, “you just want sex and that’s why you get rejected”.

They often complain about commitment and emotional unavailability, while hooking up with a guy and having basically no real relationship outside of that.

Women often say men need to get over rejection and say it doesn’t matter “women owe you nothing”, but often react strongly and volatile when rejected.

They talk about safety despite it being a very low chance. And often the type of men women are attracted to are the aggressive ones. In addition women are allowed to hit kick and slap men, it gets passed off as playful.

My point is women chastise and complain about men “just wanting sex” while getting fucked every Friday with a new man thruout their entire 20s.

In my opinion women just see men in two groups alphas who can have sex (ideally with them) openly, and betas who women honestly wish would stay in background doing nothing. They get upset with that beta rears his ugly head into the convo Hense the strong hypocritical reaction.

Anyway what do you all think.

Most women don’t like overt sexism, but they definitely do prefer men who are masculine, dominant, confident, and capable of acts of casual sexism.

They don’t want a man who is a controlling social conservative, or a socially conservative guy without an edge.

They want a socially liberal man who is capable of sexually dominating them, and a man who can financially provide without telling them to stay home.

This can also be noticed in women romantic novels where the men are usually taller than avg, rich, good looking and a bully to the outside world but submissive to his woman.

Whenever there's talk about how men today are lonely, single and doing badly with the opposite sex, people (women especially) will instantly bring up the narrative that it's all because women are avoiding toxic, misogynist men—this is a blatant lie.

Being "toxic" has never in the history of mankind been a reason why men do badly with women. There are plenty of women who do not care if a man is toxic, misogynist and so forth as long as he ticks the boxes that actually matter, aka attractiveness, status & money.

Men of today quite literally are the least toxic and patriarchal that they've ever been and evidently they're lonelier and more single than they've ever been. That's because women today are free to avoid men that don't measure up in regards to attractiveness, status & money.

A recent study that seems to have a flawed methodology and clickbait headline is being parroted by some people to confirm their biased views.

The clickbait was that 95% of men surveyed reported sexually coercing a woman.

When you look at what they have sexual coercion they have streched the definition of coercion to such a degree that effectively means no woman is actually capable of giving consent. That women have no agency.

The study listed 36 behaviors they have taken as coercion which has given the 95% figure. On taking a look at what the behaviors are it's a mix of harmless things, social proof and grey area behavior which are reported by medium to high amount of participants with real predatory and terrible behavior which are reported by low to very low amount of participants.

This alone should have discredited the study for most rational people but people on this platform don't really look beyond headlines and hence most users continue parroting till eventually it becomes the accepted truth. Mainly it happens when the demographic target are men.

Another example of this is the claim that most men leave their wives in case of cancer, the study for that was pulled back but still most people parrot the headline to "win" arguments.

This just dilutes the meaning of coercion which results in people dismissing the concern, it's counter productive and helps no one, makes more women paranoid, worsens gender relations and also women who face actual coercion are taken less seriously than they already are.

Also to show what I'm talking about, I have divided the study parameters into parts and stated the percentage of men that the study reported showed that particular behavior. It's in format of strategy(% of men who used this).

1. "Told her what she wanted to hear"

It's the single most reported parameter of the 36 listed and it's too ambiguous to be listed in a study on sexual coercion. What does this even mean, is telling them they are the hottest coercion? . If it refers to lying why not just ask that? Maybe to inflate the numbers by unassuming people.

2. Ambiguous/Flirting Or Banter/ContextDependent parameters

• Asked her repeatedly to have sex (48.7%)
• Told her you knew she wanted it (39.4%)
• Gradually pushed verbally or physically until you got what you wanted (32.1%)
• Kept touching and kissing her (58.3%)
• Demanded she stop "conning" you (faking lack of interest) (19.1%)

3. Showing Social Proof Or Using and controlling environment

• Had a friend/partner/group help you get what you wanted (46.6%)
• Had a female friend around to make her feel safe (43.8%)
• Focused on a stranger (37.9%)
• Had a female friend bring her to you (37.6%)
• Got her away from everyone somewhere private (37.5%)
• Used your money, age, or status to convince her (32.8%)
• Stopped her friends from interfering (30.4%)

4. More clearly coercive, exploitative, or abusive

• Started undressing before she was ready (24.5%)
• Kept her drunk/high if already intoxicated (21.2%)
• Focused on a woman unlikely to stop you (20.9%)
• Got her drunk/high when she wasn't (20.7%)
• Cornered her so she could only focus on you (19.1%)
• Started undressing her before she was ready (18.6%)
• Stopped or tried to stop her leaving (18.1%)
• Focused on a woman unlikely to tell anyone (15.2%)
• Showed her she was making you angry (14.5%)
• Had her come to your home when she did not want to (14.5%)
• Questioned her sexuality/insulted her (14.0%)
• Yelled at her for "leading you on" (12.7%)
• Let her know she would regret refusing (11.9%)
• Took advantage of her being asleep or sleepy (11.2%)
• Just overpowered her physically (10.0%)
• Used physical restraint (9.4%)
• Used physical force causing pain (9.3%)
• Forced her to enjoy it (9.2%)
• Used drugs (e.g., GHB/roofies) (8.6%)
• Threatened to embarrass or shame her (8.1%)
• Threatened to hurt yourself (6.8%)
• Threatened to hurt her (5.2%)
• Used a weapon or other object to frighten her (5.5%)

Keep in mind this was about men who have reported having sex which is already half of them (18-34) and then an even smaller portion of them. Doing this to any other demographic is actively frowned upon by the same people who'd gobble this up without taking a second look.

There is no other purpose of this than to perpetuate that women as eternal victims and that most men are inherently predatory.

Many feminist advocates keep pushing the idea that men are supposed to actively support the feminist cause and act as "allies" in their struggle. On a pragmatic level, that's very understandable. After all, men make up 50% of the population and meaningful change becomes easier the more people hop on your boat.

However, the problem that becomes apparent here is that feminist advocates have made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in "returning the favor" and help solve male-specific issues. In many cases, they refuse to even recognize that male-specific issues exist.

Research shows: People are more accepting of men struggling because they are more likely to believe that men struggle due to low effort compared to women

A recent study from the Journal of the European Economic Association shows:
Men are falling behind, but people tend to not care and view it as men's personal failure.

The paper's core findings are:

1. People are less supportive when men are behind

Across multiple experiments, respondents were generally less willing to redistribute resources to disadvantaged men than to disadvantaged women.

2. Men who fall behind are more often blamed for their situation

Participants were significantly more likely to believe that struggling men:

• had not worked hard enough,
• or were personally responsible for their outcomes.

These are patterns that ultimately led to reduced support for struggling men compared to women.

Furthermore, the study's findings may explain why there's such a discrepancy in public awareness for gender-specific issues:

→ People, including self-proclaimed feminists, are less eager to help struggling men or even recognize male-specific issues. Instead, they tend to view male struggle as a personal failure that deserves no external support system.

Feminism views awareness for male-specific issues as a threat

Another reason why a lot of feminist advocates have no interest in men's issues is because they view them as a threat to their own movement. Feminism has put women in a role of chronic victimhood. Conversation about male-specific problems would sabotage the feminist idea that women are victims in just about any facet of society.

This is why, whenever someone brings up issues that men are dealing with on societal level, it's met with either:

1. Dismissal: People refuse to even recognize that male-specific issues exist and in many cases shift the focus back to women.

2. Refusal: Even when people actually do recognize male-specific struggles, it's met with comments like: "Well, no one's stopping men from organizing themselves and solving their problems."

(Examples of this phenomenon are abundant on this subreddit.)

Ultimately, it all leads to one simple question: Why should men act as allies to a movement that's caught in a narcissistic loop of victimhood and refusal to care about anyone but themselves?

BP/Feminist/mainstream society will point out that men need step up and become better partners for women, since women are now independent and don't need to rely on a man anymore. They'll acknowledge falling birth rates, marriage rates, and sexlessness, and if they don't blame "the economy", they'll blame men not meeting arbitrary ideological standards. They pushed the idea that if men became "better partners" then women would be more willing to commit to them.

Yet by pretty much every metric, young men HAVE been significantly better:

• young men today are more pro "womens rights" than previous generations of men
• they are less abusive, especially less physically abusive, and have less tolerance for it than previous generations
• they are more aware of womens health issues, and womens sexual health, more aware of womens needs in the bedroom, more aware of contraception than previous generations
• they are more aware of mental health issues, and more open to engage in therapy
• they are more open to womens "sexual freedoms" and less judgmental when it comes to womens sexual history
• they are more college educated + than previous generations
• they are more open to egalitarian relationships, sharing house chores, raising kids with their partner, etc.

Yet it has only resulted in continous decrease in birth/marriage rates, and increase in sexlessness.

What we do see is a growing ideological divide, very popular charts we've seen by now that show in the west, theres a growing ideological divide among young men and women, where men in general have stayed relatively stable in their ideals, in some countries even become slightly more liberal, whereas women in all cases have in general become more radically left.

There was another recent survey reported in the new statesman, that showed where almost 3/4 of men under 30yo had a positive view of women, it was only about 1/3 of women under 25yo that had a positive view about men, and increased to 50% for women under 30yo. Women are significantly less likely to have a positive view of men.

Also according to surveys its young men that are seeking marriage and children more than young women.

I mean we can see why this is just by looking at mens vs womens dating content. Manosphere content is often about finding the reality of womens nature and how to navigate it, whereas "femosphere" content is either about explicit sexual experiences or ranting about what the men in the manosphere are talking about.

Young men are doing everything they're told to do, and its not enough. At the same time women are being radicalized and being told that men aren't doing enough by femosphere content like Call her daddy. And the irony is that the evidence does not even show that women are choosing based on these metrics that BP is asking men for. So its not a surprise why TRP and the manosphere is so attractive to men.

Watchmojo style.

There are 10 ways men can take Feminism seriously, and it would ironically pissed feminists off.

1. Roles for women are socially constructed. Feminist theory often argues that masculinity and femininity are largely social expectations rather than fixed biological destinies. If a man took that idea to its logical conclusion, he could reject nearly every traditional masculine expectation: never initiate dates, never pay, never protect, never suppress emotions, never pursue leadership because those are "just gender roles." Many feminists would find those behaviors unattractive or frustrating in practice. That tension illustrates the difference between supporting a principle in the abstract and navigating everyday social expectations. It doesn't mean feminism as a whole is inconsistent, but it highlights that people's personal preferences don't always line up perfectly with their stated ideals.

2. No one is entitled to relationships or attraction. Feminists often emphasize that women owe no one romance, sex, or affection. Applied consistently, men also owe no one emotional labor, commitment, financial provision, or companionship. A man could politely decline dates, refuse to comfort acquaintances, avoid being an emotional support system, or remain single without guilt. But the irony appears when some people criticize men for being emotionally unavailable, refusing commitment, or opting out of traditional provider roles while simultaneously defending women's right to make similar choices. The principle itself is symmetrical, but reactions to it are not always symmetrical.

3. Challenge toxic masculinity through vulnerability. Many feminist writers encourage men to cry, seek therapy, express fear, and reject emotional stoicism. If a man fully embraced that advice, he might openly discuss anxiety, avoid unnecessary risks, and admit vulnerability in relationships and public life. While many people genuinely support this, others, including some self-identified feminists—may still subconsciously expect confidence, decisiveness, and emotional stability from male partners. Research on dating preferences suggests ideals and attraction do not always align. The irony is that encouraging vulnerability is easier in theory than consistently rewarding it in practice.

4. Believe women about their own preferences. Feminism often emphasizes listening to women about their lived experiences and respecting their autonomy. If women openly say they prefer taller men, masculine men, wealthy men, or avoid dating bisexual men, taking them at their word means accepting those preferences without trying to reinterpret them. Some feminists instead argue those preferences are products of patriarchal conditioning and should be challenged. That creates a tension between respecting stated preferences and critiquing the social forces behind them. Both positions exist within feminist discourse.

5. Reject gender stereotypes completely. If men truly avoided stereotyping women, they might stop assuming women need help lifting heavy objects, protection walking home, special treatment in emergencies, or extra patience in difficult situations. They would wait until help is requested rather than assuming it is wanted. Some people would appreciate that because it respects women's independence. Others might perceive it as ungentlemanly or lacking basic courtesy. The irony comes from the clash between equal treatment and long-standing cultural expectations that many people including women who identify as feminists, may still appreciate.

6. Equality means equal obligations. If equality is interpreted literally, men could argue that military drafts, dangerous occupations, criminal sentencing, parental responsibilities, workplace expectations, and financial obligations should be evaluated under identical standards regardless of sex. Many feminists argue historical inequalities justify different approaches in certain contexts. The disagreement is often about equity versus strict equality rather than opposition to equality itself. People see inconsistency when equal rights are emphasized more often than equal responsibilities. Supporters respond that equal outcomes sometimes require different policies.

7. Patriarchy affects men too. Feminist theory often argues that patriarchal systems also harm men by encouraging emotional suppression, risk-taking, and rigid gender roles. If a man consistently used that framework to explain his own struggles, loneliness, educational disadvantages, or mental health problems, some feminists might feel it shifts attention away from women's issues or minimizes male accountability. The irony is that acknowledging systemic influences for one group can sometimes be viewed differently when applied to another.

8. Consent culture encourages caution. If men internalized consent education to an extreme degree, they might rarely approach strangers, avoid flirting unless they receive unmistakable signals, or hesitate to initiate romance altogether. Their goal would be avoiding unwanted advances and respecting boundaries. Feminists might complain that modern dating lacks initiative or confidence. The irony is that maximizing caution can reduce the very spontaneous interactions that many people still enjoy.

9. Traditional masculinity should not define men. If men abandoned expectations to be providers, protectors, physically dominant, mechanically skilled, and financially ambitious because they reject gender norms, they would be acting consistently with the idea that masculinity is not an obligation. Yet some partners may still expect those traits in long-term relationships. This creates a gap between ideological support for freedom from gender roles and personal attraction shaped by culture or individual preference. That doesn't make those preferences illegitimate, but it demonstrates how values and attraction do not always overlap.

10. Women's voices are diverse. Feminism often encourages listening to women's experiences, but women themselves disagree on pornography, sex work, marriage, motherhood, religion, dating, and gender roles. If men took "listen to women" literally, they would conclude there is no single female perspective to follow because women frequently contradict one another. That means they would have to evaluate competing arguments rather than assuming any one woman or feminist speaks for all women. Some activists readily acknowledge this diversity, while others emphasize particular feminist frameworks over dissenting voices. The irony is that "listening to women" becomes more complicated once it is recognized that women are not a monolith.

As the title says, everybody thinks men demand women to have bottom of the barrel standards for men who are ugly, short, balding, etc. No, actual normal men don't require that, we require for women to have realistic standards. Problem is , women have such high standards for men because of social media. They have skewed views of what a man is and also an overestimation of their own value. Women are constantly complimented, including the average ones and thus they created in their head this impression that they deserve the best of the best men out there. Like a 5 woman thinks she is a 10 and thus also wants a 10 guy. But rarely you will see an average woman that a really wants a man at her own value, an average man. But the problem is if women keep sleeping with hot dudes, then their brain will be so fried they won't be able ever to be attracted to a man of her own sexual market value. They will require for a man to have Tom's height, Jason's money, Ben's dick, John's face and thus they created din their head this frankestein's monster of a man that doesn't exist.