I use to think that many of the women that attack men are radical feminists however I now think it’s just plain old hatred of men.

Women (especially young women) have internalised men are bad. These women have been free to do as they please to retaliate against men for this ‘badness’ because quite simply the environment allows it and encourages it (e.g. courts being lenient with women… There’s many cases of this recently).

The media industry, government, entertainment industry and pretty much all domains at this point have been infected whereby they tolerate the abuse of men and even enable it.

So next time you think you’re dealing with a radical feminist that is concerned with doing away with the patriarchy and seek equality then maybe double check and ask yourself ‘is this just plain old male hatred’?…

Do you guys think the same at this point? It doesn’t strike me as purposeful aggression for an aim (e.g. suffragette terrorist activities for greater equality)… It just comes across as hatred from extremely entitled women because they truly do believe men are bad from all the internalised messaging. Thoughts?

Has anyone noticed how differently it’s viewed between men and women?

For instance if a man has trouble ejaculating or getting hard it’s always the same half cocked (pun intended) stuff.

‘Oh it’s death grip, you wank too hard’

I mean, it’s a now a medical syndrome for gripping your penis. I mean the other response could be ‘work on your kegels love there’s no traction on the tyres’

‘Porn addiction’

I mean, I guess but it seems like a cop out of an answer.

‘You’re masturbating too much’

Been doing it since I was 12, there’s no way I could possibly masturbate too much. I’ve reached super saiyan levels of mastubatory perfection.

However a woman has issues it’s never

‘Try putting down that 8,000v vibrating cock machine’

If I said I’d got a Swedish super suck 9,000 with tingling haemorrhoid simulator I’d be sick.

No medical syndrome for having something rattling your clitoris at breakneck speed…

Or

‘Maybe you just need to be more romantic to him outside the bedroom, maybe put the kids to bed, make sure the dishes are done. Give him time to relax’

‘It’s no wonder he can’t ejaculate when you berate him constantly, be kind, give him cuddles, sit down and watch Mythbusters with him’

‘Give his fart box a tickle’

I dunno, men have got to feel guilty about wanking now.

Wank syndrome.

So I went on a date and at the end I asked if I could kiss her.

While kissing her I ran my hands over her back, ass and boobs. I can see now why this is going too far for some but for my sex life it was a standard thing. When one would go too far the other would break away and tell them to stop that. Like a girl might bite me and I’ll tell her to stop or maybe there’s too much tongue and she’ll tell me to ease up.

I get a text from this girl telling me she didn’t consent to the groping and doesn’t want to talk to me.

I honestly feel awful and went on reddit elsewhere only to be told I’m a creep. And I was a creep, I did something this girl didn’t like and I should’ve asked first.

But now I‘ve got this major anxiety about consent.

I thought I was doing it right, but it seems there’s a lot more on my shoulders than I realised. I use to depend on my partners telling me both yes and no. And I’m worried that I’ll be too in the moment or misread something as pleasure and forget to ask for consent.

Then there’s past experiences where women have told me it was a turn off when I asked as opposed to just using body language, or other times where I’ve done something on instinct and she’s later told me she was glad I picked up on that. That crap just mixes in and confuses me.

We all make slip ups but I didn’t think sexual assault was one of them. How much of consent is my responsibility and how do I do better?

I'm pretty much forced to hang out with the people who accept me which tends to be the left, but the (general) left also expresses hostility towards males. I just want to be treated like a human being and other males to get treated like human beings, not only does misandry hurt me, it hurts me even more seeing other males go through it.

"A Pennsylvania woman who falsely accused an innocent man of trying to rape and kidnap her has been sentenced to less than two years in prison.

Anjela Borisova Urumova, 20, filed a false police report against 41-year-old Daniel Pierson. The claims landed Pierson in jail for a month on a $1million bail and he was charged with multiple felonies." (Daily Mail)

Recently I've seen a huge rise of women saying how they should all start refusing to give birth to males and have an abortion whenever the child is male.

At first I thought it was only a few people saying this, but after doing more searching through communities like the 4b, it's become clear that a large number of women think this way.

"We need to eliminate the key to our struggles--males"

"Don't. Birth. Boys."

"We CANNOT have sons"

"Abort all male babies"

"Why would I want to raise my own oppressor"

These are some of the exact things they have said.

To me this seems like blatant and obvious misandry, they're not even trying to hide it, and there's nothing that can justify it at all.

They believe that outright eliminating males from society is the solution to all their problems. I am deeply sickened by this and feel like this is a topic that seriously needs to be addressed.

Edit: I've realized that majority of what I've been seeing is mainly just on social media, but even then it still shouldn't be dismissed. It's still spreading a horrible message that the only solution to women's issues is to have a society without men.

Pervasive feminism is my phrase for the idea that pro-women narratives have become an unspoken and assumed feature of the average person's everyday understanding of the world, without necessarily even thinking about it. This applies to both sexes, but especially amongst women.

It's common for men who have a disdain for women to say things like, 'Women always make it about themselves'. This may be true, but it seems a bit of a frivolous way of looking at things. Everybody makes things about themselves because everybody, without exception, has a massive ego and an inescapably individualistic perspective on things. I am a man and I make everything about myself. The way I see it is a bit different. It's not so much that women make things about themselves, it's more that women make things about women. In other words, women have been encouraged to think as a class. Even when a particular woman does have a noticeable tendency to make everything about herself, she is doing this because she fundamentally believes that women are an oppressed class, thus it is not really about her, but about women as a socio-political group that she identifies herself with. Men do not tend to do this. It's a quirk peculiar to women.

What I've noticed here in Britain is that women in discussions will often show signs of being politicised as women. They will say things like this or that woman was kept down or wronged in some way by men. The woman being referred to may be some prominent individual of contemporary note or historical interest. It could be some inventor woman nobody's ever heard of and everybody wants to forget, or a woman politician, or painter who the Great Masters ignored, or whatever. Or the woman being referred to could be of more modest profile, just an ordinary person who the woman doing the ranting happens to know - maybe a work colleague or her daughter or something like that. Men are generally maligned or demonised in these scenarios while the woman being referred to can do no wrong.

Dividing the world into oppressors and oppressed in this kind of way suggests a simple mindset. Men are not inherently oppressive. Most men have no meaningful influence in the direction of society and are structural victims of society's abuses at least as much as women. If women as a class have been oppressed (I am not saying they have, I merely entertain the notion for the sake of argument), that is not the fault of most men. The blame for it would be with only a tiny number of men (and some women too) in all human history. Moreover, women can be perpetrators of abuses at least as much as men. By way of example, having women leaders in politics has done nothing to improve the social condition of humanity. We could have all-female leadership in every country of the world, with the United Nations General Assembly full of women too, all turning up for a cup of tea and a natter, and the system would remain as it is, no doubt with invisible men taking the blame for all the world's problems.

I could mention at this stage that in nearly all countries that have sophisticated criminal justice and penal systems, very many more men go to prison than women, and women tend to receive much lighter sentences than men. This is sometimes supported with the argument that men commit more crime than women, but that assertion is open to debate, at least in the degree to which it should be applied. I have no difficulty believing that men actually do commit more crime than women, as this does make intuitive sense, but it also seems likely that men are more likely than women to be criminalised and come to the attention of the authorities, partly due to in-built biases against men and boys. Let's at this point not overlook the glaring contradiction and hypocrisy in the suggestion that men are more criminal or dangerous than these harmless, angelic women who are much put upon by [insert excuse] and whose misdeeds thus warrant impunity. Women commit awful crimes and also do a lot to cause crime, even when they aren't committing it in a legal sense, but this won't be reflected in those crime statistics.

It is true that, generally-speaking, a prison sentence will impact on a woman in different and harsher ways to a man and this of course should be considered. For instance, women have a much shorter span of sexual attractiveness and fertility than men, and women often have childcare responsibilities, and younger children can be more distressed at the absence of a mother than the father. All this being fair and noted, it however does nothing for the argument that men are natural oppressors, unless we want to say that male prisoners are on the same side as male prison governors. Nevertheless, something along those lines seems to be common currency in discussions about Britain's penal system, with calls for women to be spared custodial sentences wholesale.

The point I wish to make is that everyone (even myself and all of you on here) is a feminist, even if just in an unthinking, implicit sense of holding received values and opinions. As an example, I have an interest in creative writing and write poetry, stories and so on. Even without intending to, and even with all my disdain for feminism, I often find myself writing themes that are sympathetic to women or pro-feminist and disdainful of men. I cannot help it. I sometimes sit back and wonder why I wrote a particular piece and why I cannot write something more masculine and healthy, and I think the reason is that some of us who are, if I may put it this way, of an intellectual bent, have absorbed thoroughly the orthodoxy that permeated through society. That orthodoxy is feminism in a broad sense. It is not the only orthodoxy in society and not the only intellectual-cultural issue for Western societies especially (in my view, it is part of a complex of orthodoxies that also include Christianity, Leftism, and capitalism), but it is a potent cultural force in its own right and amounts to a mind virus. The oppressed/oppressor framework for understanding things is flawed and incorrect but is now hegemonic and pervasive and assumed unthinkingly by the average person - both men and women. Not in every situation, but most of the time it is assumed. This hegemonic thinking is almost a pathology. Even amongst otherwise masculine men, it has been adopted to the extent that even the mildest, educated dissent is greeted with shock and open disdain for the dissenter.

The truth is that men and women traditionally assumed different roles in society due to their complementary characteristics, not due to oppression/oppressor imperatives that, in my opinion, are astro-turfed and invented. Over the ages, the complementarity of men and women has been expressed in different ways, and probably under every social epoch - be it, feudalism or capitalism - women have carried out just as much manual work as men. Under feudalism, women worked the fields. Under industrialism, women worked in factories. But men, due to our physiology, have carried out the lion's share of heavy and tough work, and have tended to take the leading role in societies across different human cultures because that is the natural role for men, since men are physically stronger than women, and ultimately all political arrangements are substitutes for force of arms.

Personally, I think the assignation of different roles for the sexes largely owes more to sociology than biology. A woman could make a perfectly competent soldier in an army that has industrially engineered equipment that can propel force based on technique rather than physical strength. This means that even if men make better soldiers, the fact remains that a woman could make a perfectly competent soldier, so it becomes a sociological rather than biological question - albeit this is contingent on a sufficient level of technological development having been attained. But the particular need for women to bear and nurture children springs from a woman's natural nature, not just a socialised nature, and this opens the way for masculine men to maintain a role in society. I think the social relationship between men and women is a complex thing based on an evolved complementarity and any discussion of equality is irrelevant and involves invented, abstracted issues that have little or no bearing on people's day to day lives. At best, any parity between men and women in the field of brute force would be highly contingent on technological aids for women, which is why we have women combat soldiers now but didn't a hundred years ago. A feminist or a man or a woman - but I repeat myself - will jump in now and mention Joan of Arc or Boudica or some women who fought in Ancient Greece. True, maybe, but the historical record of fighting women is sparse, with respect, much of it resembles myth, and it wasn't the typical run of things - and there is a reason for that, as there is a reason for everything. Whether you want to acknowledge this or not is an issue for you, not for me. Don't make your issues my issues, please.

This article talks about how we can understand the real motivations behind behaviors, including the manipulative power plays men often deal with in relationships with women.

https://www.mg-counseling.com/blog/secrets-of-understanding-motivations-counseling-men-texas

Friedrich Nietzsche cautioned, “Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” This rings true when looking at modern progressive movements, particularly fourth-wave feminism and "woke" culture. Their goals, equity, justice, safety, sound noble, but the tactics, propaganda, fear-mongering, and silencing dissent, often target men as the problem. Some of these echo Nazi authoritarianism, prompting a question: In battling societal "monsters," have men been cast as the new villains, pushed too far by methods mirroring the ones they claim to oppose?

This isn’t about equating ideologies, Nazism’s genocidal horror is unmatched, but about noting parallels in control and persuasion, especially when ideology merges with institutional power to enforce compliance, hitting men hard.

Propaganda: Simplified Narratives, Men in the Crosshairs

Movements simplify messy truths into emotional rallying cries. The "bear vs. man" debate started as a safety discussion but became "ALL women prefer the bear," framing men as more dangerous than wild animals. It’s propaganda, akin to Nazi slogans like "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer," stripping nuance to unite and vilify, with men as the target.

This isn’t random noise. Corporate giants like Disney, Nike, and Google bake it into ads and policies, like diversity quotas that can edge men out. Democrats in the U.S., Labour in the UK, the Greens in Germany push it via laws and campaigns, think #MeToo rhetoric, gender equity rules. Nazis had Goebbels controlling media. Today, it’s corporate PR, political platforms, NGOs, and algorithms, a coalition amplifying a narrative that paints men as the enemy. Less dictatorial than Hitler’s crew, maybe, but slick at crafting a fake consensus against men.

Fear-Mongering: Men as the Eternal Threat

Fear drives it, and men bear the brunt. Fourth-wave feminism flags "systemic patriarchy," "toxic masculinity," "rape culture" as ever-present dangers. Stats like "1 in 4 women face assault" blare from NGOs, universities, government PSAs, funded by taxes or corporate dollars. Biden’s team pushes "systemic violence" policies, Europe funds "gender-based harm" drives. It’s not just activists, it’s a system keeping men as the threat, fueling an "men vs. them" divide.

Nazis made Jews the "enemy" through schools, laws, society. For men, it’s not extermination, but the fear engine’s similar, institutional power hyping a vague foe to keep tension high. The targets differ, patriarchy’s abstract, not a group to gas, but the parallel’s in how power sustains a siege mindset against men.

Cancel Culture: Men Silenced by the System

Cancel culture’s no mob, it’s systemic, and men feel it. Gina Carano’s fired by Disney over a tweet, Kathleen Stock’s career tanks for gender questions. HR and universities enforce this, not just outrage, but rules. Germany’s NetzDG pressures platforms to censor "hate speech," often anything men say that bucks the line.

Nazis used Gestapo, blacklists, burnings. Today, it’s social and job loss for men who speak, less violent, but the principle’s there, crush dissent. Both demand purity, no room for men’s nuance. The parallel’s not in brutality, but in power silencing men who stray.

The Establishment’s Role: Men Sidelined

This isn’t fringe, it’s mainstream. Amazon’s DEI, EU gender policies, Hollywood’s feminist reboots, it’s corporate and political core. Nazis had one Führer, total control. Now, it’s CEOs, lawmakers, admins, a spread-out network, but they align, pushing a narrative that marginalizes men with eerie efficiency.

Gazing Back from the Abyss

Nazism sought supremacy, genocide. Progressives aim for equity, change. One’s deadly, the other’s corporate, pervasive, not soaked in blood, but deep in culture, schools, work. Yet, when ideology grabs power, it turns dark. Propaganda, fear, silencing, they choke open talk, especially for men.

Nietzsche asks: In staring at "patriarchy," have progressives reflected the control they hate, casting men as monsters? Have men been dragged too far down a path where dissent’s heresy, conformity’s forced by a web of power? Seeing this isn’t defending old evils, it’s checking if the fight’s pulling men, and everyone, into a new abyss.

Everything Is About Sex, Except Sex, Sex Is About Power

Oscar Wilde quipped, “Everything in the world is about sex, except sex, sex is about power.” Fourth-wave feminism’s crusade proves it, flipping sex into a battlefield where power’s the prize, and men are losing. The push to "dismantle patriarchy" often means stripping men of influence, jobs, voice, framing masculinity itself as a sin. Marriage rates drop, fatherhood’s mocked, men’s spaces vanish, society frays at the seams. It’s not equality, it’s a power grab, repressing men to keep them down. Nazis crushed groups to dominate, this trend dismantles men’s roles to reshape the world, same game, different stakes. Men aren’t just in the abyss, they’re being held there, powerless.

I am from Ethiopia and i was hearing an interview about Ethiopias war and famine for the last 7 years and a professor who was interviewed said that for the last 7 years only women and children suffered from war and famine. He said men can hunt and eat while women can’t, imagine for the last 7 years of war in Ethiopia most men and boy get conscripted and they are last in food and water supply, men and boys are also most likely than women and girls to get killed by armed personnel. while all the professor said only women and children suffered, how to counter this kinds of misinformations? I already replied to his article on google website but they will like delete it because it says “ you comment is awaiting moderation”. How can any man say this against his own gender? Especially educated professor? How to counter it?

He is a doctorate of Africana studies and founded Black Male studies, which gives black men and really men in general the tools to fight against the institutional misandry we all face.

Their central focus is on black men and boys and their content is truly centered on that, but I think that his content can truly explain how men and boys in general are treated

Other good resources are BGS ibmor

Dr T Hassan Johnson YouTube channel

https://youtube.com/@drthasanjohnson?si=VimcWsV958ylxWHV

BGS ibmor channel https://youtube.com/@bgsibmor?si=L3NIoqsROfah36cq

I've seen a wave of posts and comments lately framing Adolescence as a straightforward critique of toxic masculinity and the corrupting influence of figures like Andrew Tate. While I understand where that interpretation comes from, I think it's also dangerously reductive and honestly, a missed opportunity for a much deeper conversation.

Yes, Jamie’s behavior is disturbing. Yes, themes of entitlement, rejection, and control are present. But if we only look at this story through the lens of patriarchal violence or misogyny, we risk ignoring the broader, more complex crisis that many young men are currently living through.

The reality is that Adolescence is not just about “bad boys” who feel entitled to girls. It’s about a generation of boys growing up in emotional isolation, without male role models compatible with today's society, without emotional literacy, and without any cultural script for vulnerability, failure, or even basic connection and often bullied by other teens. It’s about boys who spend their youth online, absorbing warped ideas about sex and identity, while feeling completely invisible in real life.

Many of the young men who fall into incel or redpill ideology aren't just angry or hateful. They’re lost. And significantly, there's a disproportionately high presence of neurodivergent individuals in those communities: boys and young white men with autism, ADHD, social anxiety, or depression. These are often people who struggle with social interaction, who’ve been rejected repeatedly, and who feel they have no place in a society that increasingly communicates in emotional codes they can't decode.

Reducing all of this to Andrew Tate is absurd. Men — especially young men — are not a monolith. In fact, men are arguably the most demographically diverse group on the planet, across race, class, neurotype, and life experience. Treating them as if they’re all equally "privileged" or inherently dangerous just because they're male is both lazy and counterproductive.

Yes, we need to call out misogyny (and we should do the same towards misandry). But we also need to recognize that if you offer young men nothing but shame and blame, don’t be surprised if some of them end up clinging to the first ideology that offers them a sense of belonging — even if it's toxic.

So maybe Adolescence isn’t just a story about male violence. Maybe it's also a story about what happens when society — including progressive movements like feminism — fails to address male pain with anything more than contempt or silence.

I’m not here to defend what Jamie represents in the show. But I am here to say that if all we take away from this show is “toxic masculinity is bad,” then we’re not just missing the point — we’re avoiding the hard questions entirely.